State’s cities must be at the heart of an economic rebound

Print More

It’s no secret that Connecticut’s economic recovery has not been as robust as it might have been. And it has been well-documented that a large contributing factor is that the state has lagged in recognizing that in the 21st century economy, businesses and young professionals are looking to move to dynamic, livable, walkable cities.

People of all ages and demographics are eschewing, in increasing numbers, the suburban model that thrived in previous generations.

Connecticut is at a significant disadvantage by having cities that have been left to bear staggering legacy costs, resulting in high taxes, inadequate funding for education and reduced services.

For far too long, the state has turned a blind eye, letting cities suffocate under the economic and social costs they incurred generations ago in order to be the postwar, industrial drivers the state relied on to build our 20th-century economy.

 Thankfully, many policymakers, advocates and businesses have now recognized that Connecticut’s future quality of life depends on the health and success of our central cities and have been working to reverse this tide. This is not an easy undertaking.

We must work together, standing united to help our cities thrive as the sustainable regional job creators and economic drivers we need them to be. The growth of our state economy depends upon it.

Unfortunately, not all state residents seem to appreciate this. It truly is disheartening to hear the myopic views some have expressed in their criticism of the central tenants of recent state budget proposals to stabilize the finances of our core cities and equalize the education funding formula.

Some have suggested “poor management” is solely to blame for disparities between municipal finances, failing to appreciate that a broken, regressive property tax system has pitted municipalities against one another for decades.

Or some continue to pay lip service or turn a blind eye to the fact that access to education in Connecticut depends on your Zip code. Such mentalities are not helping our economic fortunes.

Consider this example: if the governor’s budget proposal were to be approved as it currently exists, Fairfield has reported that it may need to raise its tax rate from 25 to 26 mills and might not be able to afford paraprofessionals in third-grade classes. Compare that with neighboring Bridgeport which already has a tax rate over 54 mills and has been forced to eliminate paraprofessionals in its kindergarten classes (and does not have paraprofessionals at any other grade level).

 This discussion is certainly not intended to minimize the discomfort that this level of belt-tightening in Fairfield and other towns will cause, but rather to highlight and demonstrate the significant disparities that already exist under our current fiscal structure.

Bridgeport spends $227 million to educate 21,000 students, while Fairfield can afford nearly $167 million to educate less than half that many students. The suggestions that our core cities, like Bridgeport, are already receiving too much educational funding is counterproductive to improving our cities and generating real economic returns for our state.

Our state’s challenges are real but surmountable. As we confront them, we, as a state, need to consider putting “we before me.” The collective mentality among towns and cities cannot be that spending cuts are necessary as long as they affect only other towns. To truly harbor a desire to see the state experience economic growth and success, everyone must be willing to invest in creating the dynamic cities our 21st-century economy demands, even if those investments come at a near-term cost.

As the budget process continues to play itself out in Hartford, my suggestion is that we all step back and recognize that we have a far greater interest in working together to grow the total size of the pie, rather than continuing to claw for a comparative share of one that is shrinking.

State Rep. Steve Stafstrom is a Democrat representing the 129th District in Bridgeport.

What do you think?

comments

Comments are closed.