65°
NORWALK, Conn. ‒ The Norwalk Daily Voice accepts signed, original letters to the editor. We reserve the right to edit submissions, but we respectfully ask that you keep your correspondence under 500 words. Please send letters to norwalk@dailyvoice.com.
As reported recently in a local news article, “Norwalk’s Grand List grew at a scant rate of 0.08 percent last year, which will offer no relief to taxpayers hoping the city could avoid a property tax increase as a result of the recommended 2013-14 spending plan.” The city’s Grand List was $12.91 billion in 2012, up just less than $11 million from $12.9 billion the previous year. With an increase of less than 1 percent, the Grand List has not grown enough to offset the 3.97 percent tax increase set for the next fiscal year.
It's the Mayor's job, as our chief elected official, to work to improve the City, not just in the months leading up to an election, but every single day. If Norwalk's Mayor had been doing this, he wouldn't be left questioning how we will adequately fund our schools, or bemoaning the lack of growth in Norwalk's Grand List and shrinking state aid.
In 2012, four of the top five highest taxpayers in the City of Norwalk were corporate or office developments located on Connecticut Avenue and Main Avenue, with combined real estate tax payments of over $385 million. On top of that, tenants in these buildings pay significant personal property taxes on equipment and they also bring high wage, professional jobs to our community. On
the other hand, big box stores (like the Lowe’s now slated for construction on Connecticut Avenue) pay much less in taxes, bring low wage jobs and generate traffic that makes Connecticut Avenue a mess. That’s not smart growth.
Look at our main competitor to the south. Stamford aggressively courts new businesses and employers. It strengthens its commercial tax base and revitalizes its downtown, while here in Norwalk our 'leadership' muddles along, claiming victory when there finally a sign of movement on a long-stalled project like Waypointe, or an existing business like Pepperidge Farm grows. Holding onto your existing base is the bare minimum. How is it that a Bridgewater Associates, one of the world’s leading hedge funds, leaves Westport, leapfrogging right over Norwalk to build its new corporate headquarters in Stamford?
Now as a testimony to our City’s economic development failure, the prime developable site in Norwalk, the 95/7 Project on West Avenue, remains vacant. Not only did the City clear the block and lose the tax revenue from businesses and homes that had been located on the site, but there it sat, and sat, and continues to sit. In the meantime, the construction workers who would be building the project haven’t benefitted, the project isn’t generating the tax revenue it should have been by now, and this eyesore of a site is at one of the main gateways to our community. We can do better.
If our City government had been run smarter and more effectively over the last seven years, we wouldn't be in this boat. Nobody else is going to solve our problems for us. The state is in its own fiscal crisis. Norwalk needs to get its fiscal house in order through a coordinated, sustained and effective program of economic development. To make that happen, we need active leadership that considers economic development a top priority.
I certainly do.
Andy Garfunkel
Comments (5)
While an appeal to smarter government always has a certain appeal to me, there are a number of assertions made above that are simply incorrect.
The City did not clear the land at 95/7, the property owner did. Whatever you may think of the tactic, the fact is that demolition permits are granted without the strings that bind property owners to maintaining the level of tax should they not develop the site. That is legislation that should be pursued by the Common Council, but alas, has not.
Sure, many things could be done to help 95/7 move along. A focus on how to alleviate the constraints placed by what is required in order to get development financing would help. One issue; the minimum parking requirements placed by zoning is something that should be removed. It can be done if, and only if, the City can demonstrate that it has a parking plan that would provide for parking along the urban corridor as part of a municipal asset strategy. This level of conversation does not happen either in zoning or the parking authority.
Another issue would be to submit significant infrastructure improvements through bonding that would develop capacity for hook ups to the sewer system, electrical grid and ultimately fiber. Right now, the connection fees to our system are out of line with competing cities.
Instead we get various political leaders, boards and commissions who seem more preoccupied with timing the market with a loose understanding of commercial and residential demand instead of a focus on what legislative policy actually impedes development.
95/7 does in fact pay property taxes, land is part of the assessment value of those taxes, and does not diminish just because the property is vacant. The development rights associated with the parcels inflate the value, although not as much as if a building were there.
The urban corridor is ripe for a healthy discussion about what Norwalk can and should look like in 25 years, but we aren’t going to get there if the discussion keeps focusing on the rearview mirror and confusing politics with policy.
Won't do line for line but one quick question,how much has Norwalk spent chasing contamination down West Ave from the private site and how much has the city spent in traffic lights and brick to make 95/7 so nice for the developer and not the taxpayer?
The bridge Norwalk built took three tries before the state accepted the Water st RR bridge,who paid the extra for that?Where were the people in charge including Duff Perone and Morris they did show up to shovel some BS with Dick and then waited almost a year to use the rd,its what elections do for our politicians not what they do for us.
we may make money on the land but we as a city also spend that and then some back maintaing an empty lot.Now we have destruction and people living in Oyster Shell park another wasted dollar in the name of progress.
We see what zoning has done to our city in some cases the damage will never be fixed,thats progress?
It's nice to see Andy Garfunkel talking about economic development, but this letter seems more focused on criticizing his political opponent than on explaining how Mr. Garfunkel would create more economic development than the status quo. Some specifics please.
Does Mr. Garfunkel actually understand urban land economics or is he just relying on consultants to make things up for him as he campaigns.
Before he revises the history of Norwalk we should revisit who actually held local political power 10 years ago- his party. They had every opportunity to take advantage of the last great commercial cycle but did everything to hold back new development through needless debate. Time passed to get things done and now Mr Garfunkel is looking for a photo opportunity to blame someone else!
Stamford remade itself because folks in local government got out of the way to let the private sector get things done. It did not hurt that the Governor was its former Mayor. Good or bad the south end of Stamford is exciting. 95/7 had no chance to succeed because your party debated things endlessly and ruined any chance of new development happening.
By the way there is new construction going on in town other than big box stores. Just drive around and you will notice that Peppridge Farm and Avalon have both been busy but of course you would not get that because you are to busy complaining.
Why do we want to elect you Mayor? There are far more qualified and capable people of understanding how new development happens- even in your own party!
We do need economic development, but we also need to work towards reducing our unproductive population, for lack of a better word. How much tax revenue is lost in the many acres of real estate devoted to houseing projects around the city? We would get by alot easier I think if a higher percentage of our people were paying their fair share and would be a better city overall as well.
Stamford, as nice as it is is even more expensive & hard to live in than Norwalk. Its also worth noting that our Governor left Stamford so poor they couldnt afford fireworks the year he left.
Theres many ways to look at things. The people who LIVE here shop at those stores & will shop at Lowes, and many who live here will work there. I dont know anybody who works or does business with Meritt7, so while the revenue raised is certainly important, for the average person the availability of stores matters more. Plus, we wouldnt NEED those huge tax payers if we didnt have to fund so many social services mostly due to our affinity with houseing projects & low income houseing. Another thing that comes with them is violent crime. Thats something we share wist Stamford but is conspicuously absent from our surrounding towns. Fighting that crime turns a PD into a paramilitary thing instead of neighborhood cops and costs much more than a PD that needent worry about vice, gangs & general street crime as much.
Growth, isnt always good for a community. Being self sufficient & prosperous is. We would be much better off with a stable population which was productive than we will ever be with an expanding welfare class we need to constantly raise taxes or the grand list to pay for.
I'm just one Norwalk taxpayer. But I'd love a Mayor more concerned for what benefits the taxpayer than simple economic growth. Its not a numbers game, its a quality of life game.