Building Commission Update: A Phony Price Tag For Access To Code Violators

Once upon a time municipal government in New Britain had a Building Commission – a five-member body that oversaw code enforcement, permits and reviewed variance requests. Every month appointed citizens reviewed inspections, monitored activities and made requests of inspectors if they knew of any code problems.

For safe housing advocates the building enforcement has been made worse by the elimination of a certificate of occupancy law that went out before the old commission was eliminated.

Charter change did away with the Building Commission six years ago and City Councils ever since have failed to adopt a building board to deal with persistent blight, abandonment and code issues. While the current Charter did eliminate many boards and commissions it gave the Mayor and Council power to establish them by ordinance instead of the lengthy referendum process at any time.

At long last the City Council is set to reinstitute the commission at its July meeting in the aftermath of laudable press coverage by the New Britain Herald’s Rick Guinness on code problems, squatters and evictions at properties owned by out-of-town landlords. Guinness and the Herald, despite their limits at the corporate owned hometown daily, are turning in some of the best local journalism in years on the housing issue. More on that in a subsequent post.

Although Mayor Stewart has been against reinstituting the commission, he should work with the Council and, as the appointing authority, give appointees an opportunity to improve code enforcement and housing policy that has been neglected for a number of years. The reality is a new Building Commission will be as effective as the Mayor wants it to be.

The need for more oversight of the Building Department and more accountability in this area of services was evident at the July 9th Council meeting.

Councillors were told that it will take up to $40,000 just to put reports on building-code violations together from the building and health departments and the Fire Marshall’s office. According to the Herald story, “finding out what actions have been taken against building-code violators will cost the city $40,000” in administrative and overtime costs. To anyone outside the City Hall bureaucracy, the figure sounds preposterous. It raises the issue of whether accurate logs and records are being kept on a day to day basis at these enforcement departments. The Council appropriately rejected the $40,000 to get the information, but you have to wonder whether they were snookered into believing that it would or should take that much to get data that should be available at their next Council meeting. “Along with giving the $40,000 estimate, the city plan, fire, health and licenses, permits and inspections departments said they will begin keeping better track, electronically, of violation information,” the Herald reported. That admission alone illustrates the need for more citizen oversight over a department that, after the Police Department, fields the highest number of complaints and disputes from residents.

Put simply, a dubious price tag to get some basic data that should already be available has been thrown in the way of improving enforcement and making a Building Commission an effective tool to reduce blight.

Remembering Sam Goldberger

With the sudden passing of social activist Sam Goldberger of West Hartford on June 9th advocates of peace and economic justice in Greater Hartford lost a local hero who traveled the world for the causes he believed in and gave generously of his time and resources for them.

Goldberger, a graduate of Yale ’64 and Columbia where he earned a Ph.D. in Central European History, probably could have pursued academics behind Ivy walls. Instead, he returned to Connecticut to teach at Capital Community College for 33 years. He also became a campus leader in his faculty union, the Congress of Connecticut Community Colleges. It would be a good guess that Sam’s activism and immigrant roots in Bridgeport led him to a community college where working people and first generation college goers get a chance to move up the education ladder. Through the years he shared his passion for intellectual inquiry with his students and gave of his time generously advising student groups.

Sam was a member of the West Hartford Democratic Town Committee and, as the saying goes, was in good standing with the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.”

He participated in We Refuse To Be Enemies -- a group of Jews and Muslims who talked peace and understanding amid Mideast turmoil and border disputes. Every peace and progressive organization in Greater Hartford probably benefited from Sam's involvement.

Just recently he was exhorting friends to contribute to Bethlehem University of the Holy Land, a Catholic, co-educational institution of higher learning established in 1973 to meet the needs of the Palestinian society that is open to people of all faiths.

Said fellow West Hartford Democrats Carol and Win Heimer: “Pardon the cliche, but Sam had a heart as big as all outdoors. He was kind, compassionate and a true humanist. We are privileged to have known him as a labor activist, Democratic Town Committee Member, and advocate for peace and justice here and in the Middle East.”

Bush Visit At Taxpayer Expense Raises Big Bucks For Murphy Challenger

President Bush's visit to Connecticut and the 5th Congressional District on Friday raised as much as $700K, according to press reports . Much of the money is supposed to benefit the presumptive opponent of first-term U.S. Rep Chris Murphy, State Senator David Cappiello.

Bush used a Hartford speech on malaria-fighting efforts to underwrite an obviously partisan journey to the Kent home of Nixon administration Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. Invitees came at $1,000 per person and got a photo with the President for $10,000.

In a bizarre twist to the trip shared with a group of 5th CD Democrats this weekend, the White House called Cong. Murphy's office last Tuesday to invite him to accompany the President on Air Force One on his way to the Northwest Hills to shake the GOP money tree for Murphy's opponent. No word yet on whether Murphy's office staff has stopped laughing yet. New England's only GOP member of Congress, Chris Shays, took the free ride.

While Cappiello needed the kind of cash that a sitting President could bring him, many Democrats and unaffiliated voters will be asking just what part of Bush's policies does Cappiello plan to run on. There was no evidence that Cappiello engaged in any photo ops with Bush. Nary a word on the Cappiello website.

Chances are the Republican challenger will do his best to ignore George Bush completely the rest of the way. It appears his strategy is to run a stealth campaign of quietly backing the Bush agenda and painting himself a Nancy Johnson moderate. To know the real David Cappiello, however, all voters will have to do his follow the money trail back to the White House. The largess given to Cappiello is the best tip off yet of what he stands for and how he will vote: for wasteful war without security, for deficits, for the continuing economic slide of working and middle income people as the rich guys with the long driveways who live next to Henry Kissinger get a tax break.

[Photo credit: http://news.bbc.co.uk]

Revaluation Makes Tax Increase Inevitable According to the Mayor

A $219.5 million municipal budget was submitted to the City Council last week that will bring a tax increase to residential owners because of state-mandated revaluation, Mayor Timothy Stewart and most city officials say.

According to published reports a tax rate of 34.98 ($34.98 per $1,000 valuation) will take effect July 1 if the budget is adopted. While the tax rate is dropping, new property assessments from a recently completed revaluation will mean higher bills for homeowners and owners of multi-family units.

As with all property revaluations, burdens on small property owners and tenants increase because of the regressive nature of the property tax and Connecticut's over reliance on it to pay for essential services and schools. Residential owners in New Britain bear the brunt of higher tax bills while industrial properties will decrease under the current system.

Mayor Stewart, who rode to victory over incumbent Lucian Pawlak five years ago because of 40% re-assessment hikes, says now there is little that can be done to avert an increase in property bills because of revaluation. The budget proposal he submitted is essentially a level funding one with no layoffs and a slight increase in the education budget.

Between now and June the municipal budget will get more scrutiny from the City Council whose members will be seeking ways to extract more savings without cutting services. A key point of the debate will be whether the $118 million allocated for the school district will remain the same or be increased to deal with serious resource shortfalls cited in recent outside reports about the high school's accreditation, student achievement and morale in the school district.

Also to be determined is whether a local property tax credit will be extended to seniors and individuals on fixed incomes -- a form of relief adopted by the Council and agreed to by the Mayor last fall. This issue, which would extend an existing state credit program for seniors with local funding, has been resisted by Stewart. The impact of revaluation, however, will increase pressure to provide the senior tax credit if not every year at least this year.

Mayor, Council At Odds Over FOI Again

Any person denied the right to inspect or copy records under section 1-210 or wrongfully denied the right to attend any meeting of a public agency or denied any other right conferred by the Freedom of Information Act may appeal therefrom to the Freedom of Information Commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission.

Excerpt from Connecticut's Freedom of Information Act

The public's right to know has become a surprisingly controversial issue since last November's municipal election, putting the Republican Mayor at odds with the Democratic City Council.

In December, the Council adopted an ordinance without the Mayor's signature that requires city departments to release records and information in a timely manner when requested to do so by members of the Common Council. The ordinance apparently stemmed from some foot dragging on information access at City Hall. In one instance, Democrats sought information for legislators researching data for a bill that would create a Health Care Partnership Act, enabling cities to join the state health insurance pool and reduce insurance costs. When a legislative aide working for House Majority Leader Chris Donovan (D-Meriden) asked the city Finance Department about the number of city employees and health premium costs he was promptly turned down and told the request would have to be approved by the Mayor.

In January, Republican Town Chair Paul Carver, perhaps in retaliation for the FOI ordinance, filed a formal complaint with the state commission contending that Council Majority Leader Mike Trueworthy did not identify a nominee to the Mattabasett District Commission on a meeting agenda despite the posting of the vacancy on the agenda. Democrats have called Carver's complaint "frivolous." The Commission has yet to take up the complaint amid predictions from Democrats that Carver's complaint will be quickly dismissed.

This month a second ordinance has been proposed by Ward 4 Councillor Phil Sherwood (Photo) that would essentially establish a local Freedom of Information act. The FOI law and the 37-year-old state FOI Commission is the arbiter of all complaints at the local and state level. But Sherwood and others on the Council feel that open meetings and access to public records need to be clearly spelled out at the local level.

The Stewart Administration didn't help itself when the Board of Finance and Taxation, deliberating over the city budget, kicked New Britain Herald Reporter Rick Guinness out of its meeting. The newspaper has responded in kind, according to a march 24th Herald story:

In the past month, elected and appointed city officials, including Mayor Timothy Stewart, have barred access to public meetings, prompting The Herald to file complaints with the Freedom of Information Commission. The city must send a city attorney to Hartford, at taxpayer expense, to justify the actions.

These recent actions are raising the possibility that the Stewart administration is skirting if not violating the spirit and letter of Freedom of Information laws. Stewart and his Council minority leader, Lou Salvio, are likely to argue that such an ordinance is unnecessary at the local level. Salvio, arguing against the first FOI ordinance, claimed that he did not have any difficulty obtaining the information he needed. Democrats, however, say that is the point. Republicans, they say, are playing a partisan game even when it comes to public access to data and open doors at public meetings.

While the state FOI Commission has ultimate jurisdiction and enforcement power, it has been very supportive of some form of local FOI oversight since a 1999 statewide survey found "disappointing results" of compliance with the FOI Act by local government.

The state Commission, in fact, has adopted a local "model" ordinance that calls for establishing a municipal FOI Advisory Board -- not quite a model FOI ordinance but a move designed to reduce the small commission's large caseload.

Colleen M. Murphy, the FOI Commission's Executive Director and General Counsel, advocated for a local advisory group in an article "Freedom of Information Advisory Boards Will Benefit Citizens and Public Officials Alike":

"Why should municipalities take such a step? The answer is simple: the creation of these advisory boards will go a long way toward resolving FOI questions well before they turn into full-blown disputes. The function of the municipal advisory board is to act as a liaison, to citizens and public officials, as well as to the FOI Commission. Members of advisory boards will be trained in the application of the FOI Act to issues of local concern

.

Murphy, making her case for municipal advisory groups, said they would "demonstrate a municipality's commitment to the concept of open government."

City Councillor Sherwood appears to be making the same argument in calling for what would amount to a municipal Freedom of Information Act if the ordinance to be considered by the City Council is adopted.

Stewart may charge that the open government ordinance is just another example of "partisan sniping" at his administration and that it's his prerogative to maintain control over the flow of information at City Hall. But even a mayor in the strongest of strong-mayor forms of government has to realize at some point that withholding publc records and closing the door on open meetings is the wrong way to go.

Foreign Intelligence, Telecom Immunity Evokes Same Old Fear Mongering Against Cong. Murphy

Criticism over a U.S. House debate on a Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA) re authorization by Rep. Chris Murphy's prospective Republican opponent shows the GOP is turning early to divisive fear tactics on issues of national security and fighting terrorism in 2008.

Danbury GOP State Senator David Capiello, in a statement appearing in a New Britain Herald story by Scott Whipple, knocked Murphy and the House leadership for holding up a Senate-approved bill that grants retroactive immunity to telecom companies, leaving the Bush Administration free to spy on Americans in the name of national security without any constitutional safeguards. Abuse of intelligence gathering capabilities contributed, in part, to the resignation of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez last year.

Capiello contends that retroactive immunity for telecom companies and warrant-less wiretaps should be allowed despite a 1978 FISA law that provides the government with immediate spying capabilities so long as warrants are obtained within three days of the intelligence gathering. “I hate the idea of it being a campaign issue,” Cappiello was quoted as saying. “I see it as a national security issue. It’s an American issue. I hope it will be resolved so it won’t become a campaign issue.” Capiello appears to be drawing on the playbook of former Cong. Nancy Johnson who swamped the airwaves in 2006 with attacks on Murphy inferring that the Democrat would aid and abet terrorists. By saying "it's an American issue" Capiello implicitly questions Murphy's patriotism -- the same tactic used by Johnson's failed re-election campaign.

Murphy is on record as saying “it is dishonest to say that the expiration of the Protect America Act means the country can’t survive. Currently, the attorney general can approve surveillance within minutes; approval from the FISA court can be obtained in three days. The government simply begins the wiretap and goes to FISA court for retroactive approval.”

Rep. Murphy supports modifying the federal FISA law "to meet current threats" but takes issue with the Republicans for exploiting the issue "for partisan political gain." To Murphy and other House Democrats, Bush and the Republicans are holding up the re authorization in order to protect telecommunication companies for infringing on the privacy for millions of Americans. Democrats are asserting the intelligence gathering is needed without breaking the law and revealing personal information about law-abiding citizens.


Murphy and House Democrats are taking up where Senator Chris Dodd left off in the U.S. Senate. Dodd valiantly opposed telecom immunity in the Senate and for a time was able to delay its passage in a stand against Bush' intransigence and Majority Leader Harry Reid's indifference. In January Dodd framed the issue in a statement on the Senate floor: "More and more, Americans are rejecting the false choice that has come to define this administration: security or liberty, but never, ever both. It speaks volumes about the president’s estimation of the American people that he expects them to accept that choice. The truth, though, is that shielding corporations from lawsuits does absolutely nothing for our security. I challenge the president to prove otherwise. I challenge him to show us how putting these companies above the law makes us safer by an iota."

One Way To Promote Job Growth and Stability: Eliminate Tuition At State's Public Colleges

The earning power of college graduates versus those whose highest attainment is a high school diploma favors the former by a wide margin. In central Connecticut, it doesn't really matter anymore if you want a job as an analyst at an insurance company or fill out an application at a small manufacturer to build parts on the shop floor. You will need post-secondary skills to fill decent paying jobs in our regional economy.

That's what makes State Rep. Timothy O'Brien's legislation to eliminate in-state tuition for students at UCONN, the state universities and the community colleges intriguing. So intriguing that O'Brien's proposal has drawn considerable press coverage, including a February 21 story in the Meriden Record-Journal.

House Bill 5261 "will eliminate all tuition and fees for in-state residents" and proposes "that funding be increased to offset the costs" of eliminating in-state tuition at the public colleges and universities. While many would call the O'Brien idea unaffordable, the need to make college and post-secondary training opportunities available is broadly recognized as a key to retaining jobs and a stronger economy.


O'Brien's idea is not new. Free public education is an idea deeply rooted in the American egalitarian ideal. Once upon time California was a K-graduate school system without tuitions and fees. And last year MA Governor Duval Patrick, a business friendly Democrat, proposed a guarantee that the 12 community colleges in his state be open and tuition-free.


According to the Record Journal, O'Brien recognizes the current reliance on student tuition and fees to meet operating costs: "O'Brien's bill would require students who did not pay tuition and fees for the duration of college to pay a fixed rate for a certain amount of time after they graduate, depending on their income. If they move out of state, however, the students would be required to pay back the full amount."


Says O'Brien: "I introduced this legislation because I think that it is time that Connecticut start talking about the fact that high tuition and fees at our public institutions of higher education is a growing barrier to a college education for many people in our state, even if good financial aid is available for students." O'Brien emphasizes that the bill is also an effort to stem a "brain drain" that will encourage young people to stay in Connecticut.

While O'Brien concedes that House Bill 5261 will likely go no where in a short legislative session. He knows it opens an important discussion on educational access and economic policy that will not end with the close of the General Assembly this year.

Post originally appeared at http://newbritaindemocrat.blogspot.com