On the surface, anything that takes a step towards property tax relief for the beleaguered homeowner seems like a good thing. Who wouldn’t support a check against the never ending rise in taxes. But, you can’t have policy decisions created in a vacuum and where Rell’s proposal falls short is exactly along the lines of not thinking about the realities outside the old Hoover thinking.
The problem with Hartford telling towns the maximum that they could raise taxes is that it would pit the various mandates that Hartford imposes, like the state Educational mandates, at an unfair advantage over the things a municipality might like to do. To meet a proposed 3% cap would lead to fierce budget battles pitting schools versus other municipal services, battles we already see now.
The Courant doesn’t add much to the details of Rell’s plan, refering instead that details would be flexible and revealed sometime in January. That didn’t prevent the Connecticut Conference of Municipaliites to issue an 8 page report on why they are against, as they say, this “nanny-state act.”
The legislature has been the governmental body fiddling while property taxes, educational funding and cost of living and working in Connecticut have be waging their toll on residents like a California wildfire. There’s a healthy and desperately needed debate that needs to be happening in Hartford about property tax reform. If Rell’s intent is to kick start the debate by proffering such an unworkable proposal than I applaud her. If Rell really believes that the state should dictate to municipalities spending and revenue collecting, then Connecticut is totally doomed.
source: Courant, Rell, municipalities spar over tax cap proposal, By Associated Press, December 22, 2007
