Am I the only person in the state who thinks Gov. Dannel Malloy’s plan for tolls and gas taxes makes sense? Probably. But let me try once again to overcome the usual objections and myths and explain why Malloy’s plan is fair and necessary.
Tolls are taxes
No, tolls are user fees. Train fares aren’t taxes, are they? If you don’t want to pay a few pennies a gallon more for gasoline, don’t drive. Join us on the train and pay the highest commuter rail fares in the U.S. There is no free ride.
Taxes are already too high
That may be your perception. But in 1997 when legislators cut the sky-high gas taxes by 14 cents, why didn’t they tell us that would cause us to lose $3.7 billion in needed transportation funding? The bill is now due.
I already pay property tax on my car
Sure, but it doesn’t go to fixing the roads. That’s a municipal tax. If you don’t like it, complain to City Hall.
Gasoline prices are already the highest
Not so anymore. Connecticut’s 39-cents-per-gallon tax is the third-highest in the Northeast, trailing Pennsylvania (59 cents) and New York (44 cents) and just ahead of New Jersey (37 cents).
Roads should be free
Just where in the Constitution does it say that? This isn’t the pioneer West. We’re talking about Interstate 95 and the parkways. Driving is not like going to an all-you-can-eat buffet. Think of the new paradigm as an a la carte restaurant where you pay for what you eat.
Tolls are not safe
This is another myth since the days of the 1983 “fiery truck crash” at the Stratford toll plaza on I-95. Tolls don’t require barriers or booths anymore. They’re electronic gantries over the highway reading your E-ZPass or license plate without slowing down.
Tolls will divert traffic to local roads
Maybe, for the first week. Then people will decide if they want to waste time in traffic or pay a few cents to get where they’re going.
If we raise gas tax, why do we need tolls?
Raising the gasoline tax can be done in weeks. But tolls will take two to four years to install. By then, upwards of half of all cars will be electric, paying no gas tax. Why should a Tesla driver get a free ride?
Toll out-of-staters
Sure, something like 34 percent of all traffic in Connecticut is from out-of-state. But building tolls just at our borders is unconstitutional (and unfair). We can offer a discount to Connecticut residents, but can’t charge those driving through our state while we pay nothing.
Malloy stole money from transportation
True, money has been regularly “reapportioned” from the Special Transportation Fund for years by former Govs. John Rowland and M. Jodi Rell as well as Malloy. You’ll get the chance to stop that in November when there’s a referendum question on the ballot for a “lock box” on the STF.
Real problem is state employee union contracts
That may be so, but the SEBAC contracts were just renegotiated and approved by the Legislature, so how do we undo that before the STF goes belly-up next year?
I’ve had enough. I’m leaving the state
Sorry to see you go. But when you say goodbye, remember you’ll have to pay tolls to New York, Massachusetts or Rhode Island on your way out.
Jim Cameron is a longtime commuter advocate based in Fairfield County.
DOT puts $1M on table for Walk Bridge replacement easements
NORWALK — The city parcels in question aren’t huge, but the state is ready to pay more than $1 million for them in order to replace the nearby Walk Bridge over the Norwalk River. On Tuesday evening, the Norwalk Common Council’s Public Works Committee will consider granting the Connecticut Department of Transportation one construction easement and two permanent easements to facilitate the project. Under the first, the city would be paid $580,000 to grant the DOT a 23,060-square-foot permanent easement at the Public Works Center off South Smith Street. The land is north of Metro-North Railroad’s New Haven Line tracks, between the Norwalk River and a mound of earth fill named “Martin’s Mound.” Nearby, the DOT would pay the city $386,000 for an 18,780-square-foot construction easement. The narrow swath of city land runs along the south side of the Public Works Center, north of the railroad tracks. The city would get another $154,000 for an adjacent permanent measuring 6,098-square-foot strip, according to a memorandum provided to the committee by the Norwalk public works Senior Civil Engineer Paul Sotnik.
Collectively, that’s more than the state put on the table last summer for the various parcels.
“The State of Connecticut made an original offer of compensation to the City of Norwalk in June 2017 of $350,500.00 for the permanent easement to construct and maintain the railroad bridge (23,060 S.F.) and $350,000.00 for the temporary construction easement (18,780 S.F.) for a total of $700,500.00,” Sotnik wrote. “After negotiations with the Office of the Corporation Council, they have increased that offer to $966,000.00.”
Since then, the DOT requested the 6,098-square-foot additional permanent easement to build and maintain the railroad bridge and offered to compensate the city $154,000 for that piece, Sotnik wrote.
“The new total offer of compensation is $1,120,000,” Sotnik wrote. Sotnik provided the committee a June 2017 letter from DOT officials outlining the earlier offers. Since then, negotiations occurred.
“The dollar amounts were arrived at as a result of negotiations with the City,” DOT spokesman Judd Everhart said Monday. “They had an appraisal and we had our own appraisal, and both parties compromised somewhere in the middle. Generally speaking, the easements are needed to help expedite the completion of the two projects.”In addition, the DOT would pay the city $1,050 for a 998-square-foot piece of land off Hendricks Avenue to facilitate the upcoming rehabilitation of the Interstate 95/Yankee Doodle Bridge over the Norwalk Rive Mayor Harry Rilling described the compensation offers as “fair” based upon information he had been provided by the city’s legal department and other officials.
“So far, it seems if the compensation that is being offered is a fair representation of market value,” Rilling said Monday. “I haven’t heard any opposition from any of my staff at this point. So I think they’re doing their due diligence and we’re getting something that’s fair based on market value.”
Next year, the DOT plans to begin replacing Walk Bridge, which it deems outdated and unreliable. Built in 1898, the bridge failed twice in 2014, disrupting traffic along the New Haven Line and the Northeast Corridor used by Amtrak. ConnDOT shortly afterward began assembling state and federal dollars to replace the bridge.
Staging for two preliminary projects — rail and signalizations upgrades either side of the Walk Bridge — has begun with disruptions to properties.
A.J. Penna & Son Excavating Contractors recently vacated its property on Goldstein Place near the Walk Bridge to create staging space for the DOT. The company took title to the old National Guard property on New Canaan Avenue as part of an exchange worked out with the DOT. The DOT plans to raze the IMAX Theater at The Maritime Aquarium at Norwalk to create staging area on the west side of the Walk Bridge. The aquarium has received city approval to build a 4-D theater and new exhibit space elsewhere on its campus and hopes to open the new spaces before the DOT begins the bridge replacement in 2019.
The bridge replacement — a project which residents, elected officials and business owners fear will disrupt South and East Norwalk for years — is the subject of a lawsuit. CLICK TITLE TO CONTINUE
Tilcon proposal will not go in front of state legislature this year
NEW BRITAIN - A proposal presented by Tilcon in 2016 to mine 131 acres of protected watershed property will not be taken up by the General Assembly this legislative session, state Sen. Terry Gerratana, D-New Britain, told The Press Monday.
Under the proposal, Tilcon would mine New Britain-owned protected watershed land in Plainville for 40 to 50 years before returning the land to the city as a reservoir. Tilcon would lease the land for an unspecified amount during the mining. Under a similar proposal that died in 2008, Tilcon would have paid the city of New Britain $15 million for the rights to mine the watershed which acts as a natural filter for the Shuttle Meadow Reservoir.
The legislature must vote to approve a change of use for the land in order for Tilcon to mine the property. The state Department of Health must also give approval.
A law passed in 2016 delineated the steps the city must take in order to get the project on the legislative agenda including hiring a consultant to do an environmental study of the area.
“We will see the study when it’s released,” said David Huck, public affairs specialist for Mayor Erin Stewart who has repeatedly stressed that the city is waiting for the release of the report before forming an opinion.
The study, which has been underway by Glastonbury-based Lenard Engineering for more than a year, has not yet been released to the city or the state Water Planning Council and Council on Environmental Quality.
Once the report is released, the two state agencies will have 90 days to review the report and submit comments to the city. The city will have 60 days to hold a public hearing on the findings of the study.
The timeframe involved will not make the deadline for this year’s legislative session which concludes in early May, said Patrick McGloin, a spokesperson for Gaffney Bennett Public Relations, which represents Tilcon.
The Tilcon proposal has been contested by environmental groups and area residents, who fought a similar plan that died in 2008. Opponents are concerned that if the plan is approved, watersheds throughout the state would be imperiled.
Tilcon pushed to get the plan approved by the legislature during the 2017 session, but the state Water Planning Council and Council on Environmental Quality shot down a proposed 15-week environmental study in favor of a year-long study that looked at wildlife and other factors in every season.
Lenard Engineering has been required to file progress updates on the study monthly with the state Water Planning Council. The most recent update filed on Jan. 2 indicated every aspect of the study has been completed except for the final report.
Jim Ericson, a vice president for Lenard Engineering has not returned phone calls to The Press for several months.
The legislature must vote to approve a change of use for the land in order for Tilcon to mine the property. The state Department of Health must also give approval.
A law passed in 2016 delineated the steps the city must take in order to get the project on the legislative agenda including hiring a consultant to do an environmental study of the area.
“We will see the study when it’s released,” said David Huck, public affairs specialist for Mayor Erin Stewart who has repeatedly stressed that the city is waiting for the release of the report before forming an opinion.
The study, which has been underway by Glastonbury-based Lenard Engineering for more than a year, has not yet been released to the city or the state Water Planning Council and Council on Environmental Quality.
Once the report is released, the two state agencies will have 90 days to review the report and submit comments to the city. The city will have 60 days to hold a public hearing on the findings of the study.
The timeframe involved will not make the deadline for this year’s legislative session which concludes in early May, said Patrick McGloin, a spokesperson for Gaffney Bennett Public Relations, which represents Tilcon.
The Tilcon proposal has been contested by environmental groups and area residents, who fought a similar plan that died in 2008. Opponents are concerned that if the plan is approved, watersheds throughout the state would be imperiled.
Tilcon pushed to get the plan approved by the legislature during the 2017 session, but the state Water Planning Council and Council on Environmental Quality shot down a proposed 15-week environmental study in favor of a year-long study that looked at wildlife and other factors in every season.
Lenard Engineering has been required to file progress updates on the study monthly with the state Water Planning Council. The most recent update filed on Jan. 2 indicated every aspect of the study has been completed except for the final report.
Jim Ericson, a vice president for Lenard Engineering has not returned phone calls to The Press for several months.
Casino bill would revoke East Windsor license, set up competition
Supporters of a casino in Bridgeport will roll out a bill Tuesday that would revoke the East Windsor license granted last year to the Mohegan and Mashantucket Pequot tribes and replace it with a competition for proposals for a single casino costing at least $500 million.
The bill will call for bids by Jan. 1, which must include a deal with a city or town, complete with a referendum, anyplace in Connecticut. If adopted, it would empower the state commissioners of consumer protection and economic and community development to recommend one winner by April 2, 2019.
The legislature could then vote on whether to approve a casino license for the winner, which would pay the state 25 percent of all gambling revenues plus 10 percent of slot machine revenues, the latter amount dedicated to school aid.
With the two tribes certain to oppose the bill as vigorously as they fought for the East Windsor license last spring, the bill will set up yet another battle in the legislature - this time complicated by delays at the East Windsor project and a new debate over sports betting.
And this time, MGM Resorts International has a proposal for a $675 million casino on Bridgeport Harbor, which the Las Vegas-based company announced in September. That gives MGM and its supporters more leverage to talk about jobs in the same way the tribes talked about jobs last year.
The new bill dovetails with MGM’s proposal. For example, it envisions a payroll of at least 2,000 people, a $50 million fee paid to the state and at least $8 million a year to towns, all of which MGM said it would meet. It also calls for a training center in New Haven, as MGM said it would open.
But the bill’s sponsors, from the Bridgeport and New Haven delegations in the General Assembly, say the goal is to set up a fair and open contest for a commercial casino that favors no one. They say the steps outlined in the bill conform with industry standards for licensing commercial casinos in all other states, including Massachusetts, where the tribes competed. “A competitive process will bring Connecticut the best deal, in terms of jobs, economic development, community benefits, and support for our local businesses,” said Rep. Chris Rosario, D-Bridgeport, in a written statement. “This process will let every developer with an interest -- whether it is MGM or the Tribes or anyone else -- give it their best shot.”
The tribes, operating jointly as MMCT, have ridiculed the “open contest” option and called efforts by MGM to gain a Bridgeport license an ill-advised attempt to undo a 25-year-old compact between the state and the tribes. Under that compact, Connecticut receives 25 percent of slot machine revenue, an amount that peaked at $420 million in 2007 but is now about $270 million and is expected to fall below $200 million after MGM Springfield opens later this year. The new bill will pit regions of the state against each other, and will stir gambling opponents such as Sen. Tony Hwang, R-Fairfield. It will be all the harder for supporters to win passage because it doesn’t just start a competitive process, but also nixes last year’s closely fought bill for an East Windsor casino — which was larded with 11th-hour “sweeteners” for various groups, to win votes.
MGM is not likely to support a bill that recognizes the MMCT plan as legal. The company spent $3.8 million lobbying and advertising in Connecticut last year, largely trying to create an open competition and halt East Windsor on legal and political grounds.
What the tribes want is an exclusive right to jointly operate commercial casinos wherever the legislature decides to open them — building on the $7 billion they’ve paid into state coffers. They targeted north central Connecticut in order to pick off customers driving up I-91 to the $950 million MGM development with the claim that their casino would help save thousands of jobs.
In 2015, the tribes lobbied lawmakers unsuccessfully for an additional casino license in Fairfield County. They jumped back into the Bridgeport fray on Dec. 6, the very day MGM chairman and CEO Jim Murren, a Bridgeport native, was in town to address the business community.
“If circumstances have changed and there is now real interest in putting a casino in Bridgeport, we want to be a part of that discussion,” the two tribal chairmen said in a letter to legislative leaders that day.
Great, MGM and its supporters said. The bill filed Monday creates exactly that discussion — which, they say, should have happened last year. CLICK TITLE TO CONTINUE
Interior Department seeks dismissal of CT gaming lawsuit
The U.S. Interior Department told a federal court Monday that Connecticut’s refusal to negotiate a gaming compact with the Mashantucket Pequots nearly 30 years ago creates a fatal flaw in the state’s legal efforts today to help the Pequot and Mohegan tribes compete with MGM Resorts International.
Zinke has refused to approve or reject the amendments, and the tribes contend that they are deemed approved under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act if the secretary does not reject them within 45 days of their submittal to the Interior Department.
But in a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the Interior Department said Monday that the 45-day deadline applies only to gaming compacts produced by state and tribal negotiations. The Pequots’ gaming agreement with Connecticut, the department said, came through “Secretarial procedures,” an alternate administrative process.
“IGRA contains no mandatory deadlines — or any deadlines at all — for the approval or disapproval of proposed amendments to Secretarial procedures,” the government said in its motion.
The Mashantucket Pequots therefore have no legal standing to sue, undermining the claims by the state and the Mohegans, the Interior Department said.
“In addition, this Court should hold that neither the state nor Mohegan have standing to assert claims with regard to Mashantucket’s gaming procedures, nor does Mashantucket have standing to assert any claims with regard to Mohegan’s compact with the state,” the department said.
In the late 1980s, Connecticut refused to negotiate a gaming compact with the Pequots after they won federal recognition as a tribe, ignoring a federal law requiring that the state negotiate a compact in good faith. The tribe filed suit against Connecticut, and a federal judge ordered the state to enter into negotiations and mediation.
“After negotiations failed, the parties submitted their last, best offer compacts, whereupon the mediator selected the state’s compact,” the Interior Department said. “The state, however, failed to consent to the selected compact.”
So the mediator followed the procedure prescribed by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and and submitted the compact to the secretary of interior, who then authorized the tribe to open a casino, Foxwoods. “Mashantucket has been operating under those procedures since they were issued in 1991,” the Interior Department said.
The Mohegan tribe negotiated a compact with the state after its federal recognition. CLICK TITLE TO CONTINUE
Bob Horton: Time to accept new tolls and taxes
Our state government is out of money, and everyone thinks Dannel Malloy spent it.
We can look at who spent what in a minute, but first let’s look at what an empty coffer means for the state’s highways, bridges and railroads, the most ubiquitous service provided by the state.
Metro-North has cut weekend service east of New Haven, and is likely to propose similar service reductions for New Haven line branches. The state has reduced bus service already and may make more reductions in regional bus service; bus and train passengers face big fare increases. Unless the state finds more money, Malloy has said he will cut $4 billion in critical transportation infrastructure projects.
The fix for our transportation nightmare is obvious: raise more money for the State Transportation Fund. That can be done one of two ways: borrow more money in the capital markets, or raise taxes and bring back highway tolls.
Wall Street has told Hartford that it will not lend the state any more money until there is a plan in place to keep the State Transportation Fund solvent. To do that, we must raise gasoline taxes and put tolls back on the highways.
But we all know what happens to politicians who propose tax increases or the return of highway tolls. We vote them out of office. As an electorate, we have made it impossible for our leaders to exercise common sense.
Connecticut is fortunate that Malloy is not seeking re-election, but not because he has caused these problems, as Republicans and some Democrats claim. We are fortunate because without having to answer the wrath of newly taxed voters, Malloy is free to ask for higher taxes and new tolls, among other things.
His opponents say the governor has been a fiscal disaster, bringing the state near financial collapse. But put aside the political rhetoric and look at what has happened to state spending and expenses during his two terms, and the facts paint a different picture. State spending under Malloy has increased at an average of 2 percent annually, about the pace of inflation. Annual spending under his two Republican predecessors increased 7 percent and 4.5 percent. The state employee workforce has decreased 14 percent, meaning a marked drop in state labor costs.
It is true that the State Transportation Fund has run out of money on Malloy’s watch, and he has warned us about the fund’s perilous finances for several years. A decade ago, led by then Governor John Rowland, the state cut the gasoline tax from 52 cents per gallon to 25 cents. At 52 cents, the per-gallon gas tax was among the highest in the nation. At 25 cents, it is well below the average.
Malloy wants to add 7 cents to the gasoline tax, and place tolls on I-95 west of New Haven, and on the Merritt and Wilbur Cross parkways. It is a sensible plan for raising the money required to re-fill the Transportation Fund. But the negative reaction has been quite predictable, especially from Fairfield County politicians.
The all-Republican, four-person Greenwich delegation blames Malloy for, among many other sins, “raiding” the Transportation Fund to pay for non-transportation government expenses. The argument goes that, if the Transportation Fund had been “locked” to prevent any transfers, we would not have reached this critical juncture. The Republicans point to $400 million in transfers out of the Transportation Fund over the last 10 years or so. But that is just half the story. Over that same amount of time, according to the state DOT, almost $400 million has gone from the General Fund into the Transportation Fund, meaning the transfers in and out of the two funds are about even. So much for Malloy and his merry band of fund raiders. They were robbing Peter to pay Peter, not Paul.
The Transportation Fund raises about $1.4 billion a year, not enough to keep our existing system functional, let alone invest in new infrastructure to relieve congestion on our local highways and roads.
Seven cents a gallon and new highway tolls seem to me a reasonable solution for a dire financial problem. I know many Greenwich drivers do not think they should have to pay for “local” travel on I-95, but every other form of transportation includes a passenger fare. Why shouldn’t highways? The state can charge different (higher) toll amounts for out-of-state drivers if the tolls are not placed at state borders. And there are a number of ways to adjust tolls to make the charges as equitable as possible.
If not tolls and taxes, how do we find the money? Budget cuts? Malloy has controlled state spending increases and made significant cuts in the number of workers on the state payroll. Are we going to rob state employees’ pensions? Does that really seem fair to anyone? Our elected officials have to develop the political will to talk about the true cost of basic government services. And as voters, we have to listen. CLICK TITLE TO CONTINUE