Regionalism

[standish]

There is a concerted effort to blur town lines and change the way Connecticut has governed itself for several centuries. The political class has discovered that, by creating regional spending agencies run by appointed boards from disparate electoral bodies, they can avoid scrutiny and better accomplish their ends, without accountability to the electorate. Later, they'll further dissolve towns by creating regional tax-and-spend authorities. Here is a letter I have sent to our Town Council, as they consider regional "cooperation" and a regional dog pound:

Dear Council Member;

Regional "cooperation" ceases to be cooperative when taxpayers are forced to foot the bill for Health Services, Dog Pounds, or other such public goods and services. Town citizens have no control over these agencies, except that disparate Councils in different towns appoint distant boards. This method of government is a formula for rising costs, unfair funding (as in the grand list formula for MDC funding and other such schemes), unaccountable expenses and few, if any economies of scale. What will happen is that towns, per se, will cease to exist, as an increasing range of their functions are regionalized.

I, for one, have no sense of ownership or loyalty to a regional provider of services. Nor do I feel compelled to volunteer my services to such non-town organizations. Under these schemes, Wethersfield becomes an empty shell that raises taxes on its residents to fund some remote agency over which the electorate has no control... or is that, in fact, the desired outcome?

Best Regards,
Leigh Standish
President
Standish Associates
280 Hartford Avenue
Wethersfield, CT 06109
860/263-0012
860/263-0014 FAX

[SyZyGy]

Leigh,
You wrote: "The political class has discovered that, by creating regional spending agencies run by appointed boards from disparate electoral bodies, they can avoid scrutiny and better accomplish their ends, without accountability to the electorate"

Perhaps you could educate hoi poloi about the extent of regionalism already. Please provide all of us with a list of the major "regional spending agencies" in the state of Connecticut, so we can appreciate just how close we are to the edge of the slippery slope.

Thanks.

[standish]

Please don't hide behind "Syzygy" any more. Most of us have guessed your identity by the coincidence of posts and common thoughts/threads/language used in various venues. Take courage, man!

Actual or "on the drawing board" regional agencies? If every regional proposal advanced by The Courant and its other cheerleaders came to fruition, we'd be nearing the bottom of the slope. Of course, we have CRCOG, CCEDA, MDC and a litany of other acronymical (or is that apocryphal?) agencies. We've got MetroHartford Alliance, MetroHartford this... MetroHartford that... et al. I'm sure there are examples all around the State. In Oregon and Washington State, the process is even more advanced. There are regional planning agencies that override local TPZ decisions. We've got a way to go, but, the process is engaged.

By the way, anyone know how much the Central CT Health District's budget has grown since its formation? Do we need to be paying for radon kits and bicycle helmets with tax dollars? Does Council control these items in the budget, or, does the board from various member towns? Is there any direct accountability to the voters? Shall we do it with the dogs, too? Maybe the dog park at Mill Woods could be a regional tax asset?

[SyZyGy]

Apocalypse Now? Not.

Let's limit the list to extant entities, say, nominally based in Hartford County. Let's focus on the MDC. Are you suggesting that the MDC be disbanded or just reconfigured, If the former, what would take its place and how wouod the change occur. If the latter, how should it be tailored to suit you? If you were the Czar of CT, how would you deal with the MDC as an essentially unaccountable regional entity?

As far as the poor pooches who might benefit from the socializing effects of a local dog park, why suggest (even sarcastically) that it be funded via a regional tax when the proponents have said and the Town Council has decreed that no public funds shall will be used for the erection or maintenance of the park - just like the lights on Cottone Field? None of the proponents are looking for a hand out from the Town for this project; are they? They are only being provided with just a little terra firma and a little (already budgeted) 'in-kind' assistance from the Council, Parks and Rec' department, Engineering department, the Tree Warden, the Physical Services department, the accounting services of the Finance department and the Manager's office.

[standish]

...and you accuse me of cynicism? Just what is the in-kind value for all of those services? Who pays after the fact? Wait 'til you try to override a regional zoning decision... you may revise your assessment. Nor do we even want to consider a Czar of CT. That's the kind of autocracy we're trying to prevent. Sewers could have been addressed by the respective towns in the "region", as they are in most of the other 169 municipal corporations in CT. Water is usually delivered by a public utility, not a municipal corporation without borders or electorate, but, with tax-and-spend authority. History prevents us from reverting to thse models, unless the water portion is privatized and the sewers are truly separated by geography as well as type. At least we could elect the commissioners, if nothing else, and approve or defeat a budget by referendum. Actually, there are a number of alternatives that would make the agency more accountable. The issue at hand, though, is should we regionalize even more. Given the problems we already experience, I vote no.

[SyZyGy]

No. I did not accuse you of cynicism - you inferred it.

But, I do LOVE your timely use of the word in light of my comments about the "dog" park, considering the Greeek word (KuOn) is the foundation for the words Cynics and cynical and cynicism (though the use and meaning of the later words have changed over the millennia).

You mentioned that one way to make the MDC more accountable would be to allow the associated towns to vote for (a slate) of commissioners. Great idea! At the State level, we would need to change its founding statutes. Are you suggesting that we the taxpayers politic for such a change? I would certainly work to that end. Sending the MDC's budget to referendum each year (or two?) would return the power to the people and make the MDC commissioners more sensitive to the circumstances and needs of the populace.

This budget referendum idea for the MDC seems like a wonderful idea - so much so that we should adopt a similar approach for our Town budget each year. The political class, even here in Wethersfield, is are afraid of doing that though. Our most recent Charter revision commission just didn't seem to go along with that idea. Why was a budget referendum change not included in the version that was presented to Council and the polled public?

Will more regionalistic entities arise? It depends on how perceptive and involved the public is. Ultimately the public must ask the important questions: what will we (individually and collectively) gain and what will we sacrifice. Will the benefits outweight detriments?

You are right. There is a noticeable pressure from certain groups and associations to regionalize more and more. How much of this is truly for the benefit of all and how much is "self-servicing"?

You may not be cynical.

I am.

[standish]

I was the sole voice on the Charter Revision Commission in support of including a recommendation to Council for a budget referendum. With realistic thresholds, it could have prevented extreme budgets (too high, too low or those that contained, or failed to contain, critical components). Other commissioners were concerned that multiple referendums might paralyze government.

I was, in fact, also being cynical about a "regional tax asset", because many have proposed same for as silly notions as a dog park (think "Bushnell Auditorium with taxing authority"). Nor can I think of a single advantage for regionalizing, except to give politicians more control. Economies of scale are usually realized at the town or state level. There's little advantage at the regional level in a state as small as CT.

[RGarrey]

Leigh, I agree with your view on regionalism. I attended and filmed a presentation last year given by a gentleman who was affiliated with redelevopment agencies and metro alliance type groups. He talked about the benefits of regionalism but when questioned for specifics on the benefits to Wethersfield, the answers weren't there. One theme that came up was regional taxation as a form of personal property tax relief. To me it seemed that the tax burden wouldn't really decrease, it would just shift the funds to a regional authority with less of an interest in local issues. This may benefit the larger cities but I saw no benefit to the suburban ring towns.

Also you mentioned the CCHD. I am not sure of what their stated goals are but I would assume that it is to help ensure the health and safety of the citizens in it's district. When the Cove was filled with millions of gallons of raw sewage years ago the CCHD did not seem to get involved at all. That was a huge health risk that they should have been more involved in. I believe because the agency is regional there was less accountability. The lack of accountability for me is a major flaw with regional agencies.