StamfordCT

How Should We Pay for I-95, I-84, I-91 and the Parkways? High Fuel Taxes, or Tolls?

When I moved to Connecticut in 1975, the Connecticut Turnpike and the Merritt Parkway both had tollbooths.  Some years ago, after a terrible accident in which a dozing truckdriver rear-ended cars waiting to pay their toll at Stratford, killing passengers in at least one car, the toll booths were removed.

Now the state, like most others, is strapped for cash, and there are calls to again use tolls to help pay for the roads.  But there is a noisy constituency which resists tolls.

Connecticut has among the highest taxes on gasoline in the US, and also the highest pump prices.  According to  http://www.connecticutgasprices.com/tax_info.aspx, we pay 62.5¢/g [cents per gallon] on gasoline, and 61.4¢/g on diesel.  California's are the highest at 63.9 and 72.0¢/g (necessitated in part, I'm sure, by California's 30 year old Proposition 13 which keeps the property taxes of old-timers to a minute fraction of 1% of the property's market value).  Alaska's are the lowest, at 26.4 and 32.4¢/g.  (These include Federal excise taxes of 18.4¢/g for gasoline and 24.4¢/g for diesel.)

Here are the surrounding states:

Connecticut       62.5             61.4

Massachusetts     41.9¢/g       47.9¢/g

Rhode Island         49.4           55.4

New York            59.6           64.7

New Jersey         32.9           41.9

Pennsylvania        50.7           63.6 

Vermont             38.4           50.4

New Hampshire   38.0           44.0

Why did I list so many states? Because 18-wheelers have large fuel tanks -- as much as 300 gallon capacity.  That gives them the option to fill them when prices are good, and avoid buying in states with high prices.   At 5 mpg, 300 gallons gives a 1500 mile range.

Here are two tables from http://www.icpa.org/consumer_motor.htm showing Connecticut's prices compared to nearby states.  First gasoline:

State	State Excise Tax	Other State Taxes	Federal Tax	Total Taxes Per Gallon	AAA Average Retail Price/Regular Gasoline - 5/8/09	Retail Price Minus Government Taxes
NY	$0.0805	$0.3204	$0.1840	$0.5849	$2.29	$1.71
CT	$0.2500	$0.1242	$0.1840	$0.5582	$2.28	$1.72
RI	$0.2700	$0.0400	$0.1840	$0.4940	$2.19	$1.70
ME	$0.2460	$0.0150	$0.1840	$0.4450	$2.20	$1.76
MA	$0.2100	$0.0250	$0.1840	$0.4190	$2.13	$1.71
NH	$0.1800	$0.0260	$0.1840	$0.3900	$2.09	$1.70
VT	$0.1900	$0.0100	$0.1840	$0.3840	$2.11	$1.73
NJ	$0.1050	$0.0400	$0.1840	$0.3290	$2.02	$1.69

And then Diesel:  

State	State Excise Tax	Other State Taxes	Federal Tax	Total Taxes Per Gallon	AAA Average Retail Price/Diesel Fuel - 5/8/09	Retail Price Minus Government Taxes
NY	$0.0850	$0.3230	$0.2440	$0.6520	$2.61	$1.96
CT**	$0.4340		$0.2440	$0.6780	$2.60	$1.92
RI	$0.3000	$0.0100	$0.2440	$0.5540	$2.47	$1.92
VT	$0.2500	$0.0100	$0.2440	$0.5040	$2.45	$1.95
MA	$0.2100	$0.0250	$0.2440	$0.4790	$2.42	$1.94
ME	$0.2880	$0.0700	$0.2440	$0.6020	$2.41	$1.81
NH	$0.1800	$0.0160	$0.2440	$0.4400	$2.27	$1.83
NJ	$0.1350	$0.0400	$0.2440	$0.4190	$2.22	$1.80

Long haul truckers can save nearly 40 cents per gallon by buying their diesel in New Jersey.  So the effect of collecting 43 cents per gallon for CT compared to NJ's 13.5 cents is to shift the cost of paying for CT's highways onto CT's short-haul truckers, who seldom leave the state.  Long-haul gets a free ride.

"Never tax anything
That would be of value to your State,
That could and would run away, or
That could and would come to you."

For several years, I made a weekly trip from southwestern Connecticut to suburban Philadelphia.  I'd fill my gas tank at Ft. Lee, NJ, in the morning, and again as I returned.  I seldom bought any gas in Connecticut.  Most drivers of passenger cars don't have that opportunity.  But trucks certainly do.  I paid a lot of tolls, and always thought I was getting a good deal. 

Back to the subject of tolls: Connecticut has two main east-west interstates: I-95, which runs along the southern tier, and I-84, which runs from Danbury at the west, through Hartford and then northeast to meet up with the Massachusetts Turnpike en route to Boston.  We charge tolls on none of them.   Let's look at what some nearby states charge.

Massachusetts  Exit 1 to 14 (Stockbridge to Route 128/I-95)  120 miles  Auto:  $2.70; Truck 5 axles  $15.15;  Bus: 3 axles  $7.15

New Jersey: Exit 1 to 18: 113 miles  

• Auto: Cash $9.05;   EZPass weekday off peak $6.80; EZPass weekend and peak $9.05
• Truck, Class T2: Cash $18.60;  EZPass weekday off peak $16.15; EZPass weekend and peak $17.00
• Truck, Class T6: Cash $37.15;  EZPass weekday off peak $32.25.15; EZPass weekend and peak $33.95
• Bus: Cash $14.35;  EZPass $13.10 at all times

Garden State Parkway: 172 miles, $3.50

PA Turnpike: end to end 358 miles.

• Passenger car: $24.70 plus $3.75 for the Delaware River Bridge
• Truck Class 3 with 4 axles: $45.00 plus $11.25 for bridge [15,000 to 19,000 pounds]
• Truck Class 5 with 4 axles: $73.75 and $18.75 for bridge  [30,000 to 45,000 pounds]
• Truck Class 8 with 4 axles: $175.00 plus $18.75 for bridge  [80,000 to 100,000 pounds]

PA I-80:  PA proposes to put in "Open Road Tolling," which will not charge passenger vehicles until they pass the second collection point, which is expected to exempt 70% of all cars entering and exiting I-80.  Gantries will be placed approximately every 30 miles.

Car rate in 2010: $0.08 per mile; 5-axle trucks $0.30 per mile = $25 and $93 for the entire length of I-80 in PA.

Suppose Connecticut charged trucks $0.30 per mile on I-95.  The distance is 112 miles.  That would be $33.60 from every truck.  To collect $33.60 in state taxes via a state tax of .43 per gallon of diesel, we'd need to sell an average of 78 gallons of diesel fuel to each trucker passing through.   At 5 mpg, a through truck uses 22 gallons to get across CT, and that represents less than 10% of a full tank.

It seems to me that imposing a toll on CT's major highways, at least for trucks, makes a lot of sense. 

And my opinion is that cars ought to pay tolls as well, particularly at rush hour.  I'm intrigued by the I-80 approach, exempting some drivers, particularly off-peak.  By shifting some users away from rush hour use of the roads, we may be able to make travel much smoother for all.  EZPass technology makes this very doable.  (Economics Nobel prize winner Bill Vickrey anticipated EZPass, and saw how it could be used to make things work better.)

I don't think we ought to be asking drivers who live far from our major highways and who never use them to finance the main roads, particularly if we don't ask those who do use them to pay for them.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, large trucks do about 6 times the damage that a passenger car does.  Do we want to provide a free ride to those trucks?

User fees seem eminently logical and just.  Gas and diesel taxes can be part of that picture, but tolls should also be used.  I don't see a good reason to charge higher gas taxes than surrounding states do.  But we might be in a position to impose higher tolls, given the scarce alternatives.  Few trucks will detour around Connecticut in order to avoid a $20 or even $40 toll.  But they might time their trips differently, avoiding rush hour, if we gave them an incentive to do so and a place to park for a few hours near each entry to Connecticut.

Someone should have pulled that Tums ad

On MSNBC tonight the Tums commercial with the Grizzly Bear attacking a car seemed highly inappropriate.  Someone should have pulled it after the Stamford event.

Lawson Purdy: The Influence of Taxation on the Prosperity of Cities

Reprinted in The Public, October 6, 1906

THE INFLUENCE OF TAXATION ON THE PROSPERITY OF CITIES

A Paper Read by Lawson Purdy of New York
Before the League of American Municipalities,
in Session at Chicago, September 26, 1906.

In 1873, Enoch Ensley, a wealthy planter of Tennessee, wrote to Governor Brown asking him to call a special session of the legislature to amend the constitution so that changes could be made in the tax laws of Tennessee. The tax rate of Nashville was three and one-half per cent and of Memphis four per cent, and Mr. Ensley said that the burden on business was insupportable. Great land owner as he was, however, Ensley did not urge a search for new sources of revenue, but rather the application of the "rule or motto" which, he said, "It would be well for the State to adopt and have cut into the stone at the capitol (in large letters and have them gilded), in the Senate chamber, the hall of the House of Representatives and in the governor's office, . . . to-wit:

"Never tax anything
That would be of value to your State,
That could and would run away, or
That could and would come to you."

This rule laid down by Ensley has become an axiom, but before it can be applied the constitutions of about thirty-five States must be amended by repealing those despotic limitations on legislative power which are not found in the earlier constitutions, and which should find no place in the constitution of any free people. Because of constitutional and statutory restraints upon the power of cities we need discuss only what can be accomplished in most cities by executive officials under existing laws.

Conditions of Prosperity.

City officials often regard the city as apart and distinct from the individual citizens, and sometimes therefore uphold policies which appear to be in the interest of the city corporation, although opposed to the interests of the citizens. This is, of course, a short-sighted view. In reality nothing can be good for the city which is bad for the citizen, nor bad for the city which is good for the citizens. Again, many consider the interest of classes and speak of what will be advantageous to manufacturers or shopkeepers or land owners. This, too, is a mistaken attitude. Citizens should be regarded alike as men, and not as the owners or users of some kind of property. All depend upon the workers who render service for service, and it is fair therefore to consider the interest of all citizens as bound up in the interest of those who earn their living; and that city may be regarded as the most prosperous in which it is easiest and most agreeable to earn a living.

The interests of the city and of its citizens are identical. Nevertheless, they may be viewed from both standpoints.

City to purchase 50 foreclosed homes - Stamford News - The Stamford Times

City to purchase 50 foreclosed homes - Stamford News - The Stamford Times.

Posted on 01/22/2009 | By CHASE WRIGHT cwright@thestamfordtimes.com

Copy and paste below into your page: (close this pane)

<a href="http://www.thehour.com/story/463735/">City to purchase 50 foreclosed homes</a>

STAMFORD -- Stamford will receive nearly $3 million in state grant money to buy bank-owned foreclosed properties in its most affected neighborhoods.

The state Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) will disperse $25 million in Neighborhood Stabilization Program funds to seven Connecticut cities for the purpose of stabilizing neighborhoods that have been impacted by bank-owned foreclosures.

The funds will be used to finance the home acquisitions and to rehabilitate or demolish and develop the properties. Stamford will target the funds to the West Side, East Side and Cove neighborhoods for their high concentration of foreclosures, bank-owned property, properties in foreclosure court process and properties that have sub-prime mortgages.

So what should they do with the homes? I propose that they buy them, rehabilitate them, and sell off the homes -- not the land, just the homes -- as affordable housing.  Keep the land, charge the owners of the homes ground rent, in proportion to the assessed value of the land.  Since most of the value is in the land, not the buildings, their mortgages will be relatively small.  And the city will have a revenue source -- ground rent, at, say, 5% of the true market value of the land.  Currently, the town is collecting 1.187% in property tax on land and buildings ($16.96 millage rate, on a value which represents 70% of the 10/1/07 real market value).  Under the scenario I propose, the town would collect 5% on the land value, and 1.187% on the building, and the home buyer would only need to borrow enough to pay for the building itself, at its rather depreciated value, after rehabilitation.

A win-win-win situation ... except maybe for the banks.  But the federal government is looking out for their interests, and I don't think they ought to be our highest priority.    

The New London Day endorses Land Value Taxation

The New London Day has endorsed Land Value Taxation as a tool which Connecticut's Legislature should permit our cities to use.  Bravo!

TheDay.com - Agenda 2009: The Day's key issues for the year. A small step in the right direction, however, would be giving cities the ability to utilize Land Value Taxation. Such a system taxes the land, not the buildings on it. In urban areas such an approach can encourage property owners to stop land-banking empty lots and vacant buildings. By removing the tax penalty for developing such properties, it motivates owners to find new uses or sell their properties to someone who will.

In 2009 we will urge the legislature to take a hard look at Land Value Taxation for the state's business centers.

Stamford could benefit from this, too.  Our 30+ year old "hole in the ground" would blossom, creating jobs during the construction process, but more important, providing something the market wants: housing, or commercial space.   And Stamford's other lovely chain-link-fence-and-queen-anne's-lace "parks" would be put to use.  And perhaps some of our 1940s low-rise buildings, serving a single street-level tenant, would give way to midrise buildings meeting many market wants. 
And we would reduce the sprawl that is creeping up High Ridge Road, concentrating our growth close to existing infrastructure.

I hope Stamford's representatives in Hartford will join New London's in pursuing the enabling legislation.

Most homeowners would see their taxes go down if we reduced the millage rate on buildings and increased the millage rate on land value.    Owners of vacant lots would be paying something closer to their fair share of the costs of providing Stamford's services, and those who have already developed their lots to something like their highest and best use would see their semi-annual "penalty" for their temerity reduced.  I don't see any negative incentives in this. 

Harrisburg has used this since 1982, and their mayor has been re-elected since 1982.  He attributes some of that to Land Value Taxation.

Mayors in Bridgeport, New Haven and Hartford have shown an interest in LVT, too. 

Read more at http://www.urbantools.org/

Fairway signs tentative deal for store in South End development

Fairway signs tentative deal for store in South End development - The Advocate.

Excellent! Stamford gets another shopping option -- that should give us more selection and perhaps lower prices, as the existing competitors -- Stop & Shop and Grade A -- have to seek our business.

When I moved to Stamford in 1975, there were at least 18 grocery stores from 10 competitors:
Grade A (1) - Shippan
Daitch Shopwell (1) - High Ridge
Pantry Pride (3? 4?)  -- Elm Street, Newfield, West Broad, another?
Grand Union (2) - Town & Country SC, Hope Street
Gran(d) Central (5? 6?) - East Main, South End, Ridgeway, High Ridge, Forest Street, others?
A&P (2) - Hope Street, High Ridge
Gristedes (1)  - Bedford Street
Palmers (1) -  Hope Street
Bongiorno  (1) - Exit 6
First National  (1) - Bulls Head

Today?
Grade A: 4
Stop & Shop: 2
A&P: 1

Have I missed any?

Not much for a population of 120,000 people. A strike or a delivery-chain problem at either of the first two could disrupt life for many of us!  And not much competition, which leads to high prices.  (Check out A&P if you want to swoon!)

How many of us could walk to a grocery store -- a full-line grocery store -- in 1975? And how many of us can do so now?

I'm all for competition and for walkability.

And I hope that the store will be designed so that truck access and recycling are integral parts rather than afterthoughts. I'm glad it is pretty close to I-95.

Now, could we please have a Wegmans, and a Trader Joe's?  (Whole Foods doesn't excite me much, based on the Greenwich store.)    I hope that the landlord's contract with Fairway does not preclude other food stores.   That's a problem with one landholder owning large swaths of land.  I know that Grade A and Bongiornos, through their real estate acquisitions, managed to keep down the competition over the years.  Large enough properties are not easily come by.

Perhaps some of the east side site being vacated by Clairol could be the site for another fine grocery store.

The Merritt: Conserve it, or utilize it fully?

The people who acquired the land for the Merritt Parkway may have been living in the 1930s, but they anticipated well and wisely that things might not always be as they were then.

They designed a road that would be mostly straightaways, connected by relatively gentle curves (with the exception of the Greenwich portion, which, if you draw a straight line across the portion which we all drive a couple of extra miles to protect, turns out to be the Round Hill Club and surrounding estates).   This made for safer driving, and also was sound design from another point of view.

They wisely acquired a right of way wide enough to accommodate not just the two pairs of lanes initially needed, but wide enough to accommodate four pairs of lanes.

When they placed the first two pairs of lanes on that right of way, they did it in such a way that the two additional pairs of lanes could be placed next to them, without moving the initial pairs (though of course interchanges would need to be reconfigured).   The first two pairs of lanes sit in the northern half of the right of way.

They knew that, sooner or later, the capacity of the initial four lanes would be exceeded, and that the option to add more capacity would be a fine thing, and they designed accordingly.

Continue reading "The Merritt: Conserve it, or utilize it fully?" »

The other day I saw a TV news story on a child too young to read the signs in the NYC playground about keeping shoes on who suffered serious and painful burns on the soles of his feet when his bare feet touched the black rubbery surface that was apparently put there to minimize dust and produce soft landings near slides and swings -- on a hot day.

What is the artificial turf like on a hot day when a child -- or teen or adult player for that matter -- falls on it? Will the temperature burn skin?  Will the texture produce abrasions if she or he slides on it?  And what is it like for those sitting on the sidelines in bright sun on a hot day?

Has this been thoroughly checked out?

The Chesterfield Inn, in its prior incarnation, advertised its access to the private beach owned by the ALC (Auldwood-Lanark-Chesterfield) Association of homeowners.

Every house on the market which has access to that beach also advertises same in its ads. Owners and brokers understand this is a valuable asset. Not every home on Auldwood, Lanark and Chesterfield Roads has access; some lack access because they're on the wrong side of the road.   So clearly the right to use this beach is a valuable asset. 

But how valuable?  The assessor doesn't yet seem to think it is worth much.  Where smaller waterfront lots (as small as 1/3 of the size of the ALC beach, at 0.17 acre) are assessed at $1,181,250, and one of 0.19 acre is valued at $1,372,900, the private association beach of 0.54 acre is valued at a mere $158,520, and in 2008 pays an annual property tax of  ... are you ready? $258 -- less than a dollar a day!   On a property that would likely would have sold for at least $2,000,000 at the time of the recent revaluation.

I've come across another interesting group of assessments, just down the street from those in the post below this one.  They are at 320,  334,  336 and 333 Stamford Avenue.  (These are all "70% values" -- divide each by 0.7 to get to the market value the assessor is assigning.)

• 320 and 334 Stamford Avenue are each 10,000 square feet (0.23 acre), and is assessed at $536,970;
• 336 Stamford Avenue is 20,000 square feet (0.46 acre), and is assessed at $574,420;
• 333 Stamford Avenue is 30,000 square feet (0.69 acre), and is assessed at $628,110.

So the first 10,000 square feet in this immediate neighborhood is assessed at $536,970.  The incremental 10,000 square feet is $37,450 more -- 6.97%.  The difference between the 20,000 sq ft property and the 30,000 sf property is $53,690.  These values prevail until one reaches the direct waterfront properties -- despite the fact that every non-waterfront property that has even seasonal water views mentions that prominently in every real estate ad.

Artificial Turf thought

The other day I saw a TV news story on a child too young to read the signs in the NYC playground about keeping shoes on who suffered serious and painful burns on the soles of his feet when his bare feet touched the black rubbery surface that was apparently put there to minimize dust and produce soft landings near slides and swings -- on a hot day.

What is the artificial turf like on a hot day when a child -- or teen or adult player for that matter -- falls on it? Will the temperature burn skin?  Will the texture produce abrasions if she or he slides on it?  And what is it like for those sitting on the sidelines in bright sun on a hot day?

Has this been thoroughly checked out?

The ALC Beach ... now available for Hotel Guests ... and subsidized by the other 99.9% of us

The Chesterfield Inn, in its prior incarnation, advertised its access to the private beach owned by the ALC (Auldwood-Lanark-Chesterfield) Association of homeowners.

Every house on the market which has access to that beach also advertises same in its ads. Owners and brokers understand this is a valuable asset. Not every home on Auldwood, Lanark and Chesterfield Roads has access; some lack access because they're on the wrong side of the road.   So clearly the right to use this beach is a valuable asset. 

But how valuable?  The assessor doesn't yet seem to think it is worth much.  Where smaller waterfront lots (as small as 1/3 of the size of the ALC beach, at 0.17 acre) are assessed at $1,181,250, and one of 0.19 acre is valued at $1,372,900, the private association beach of 0.54 acre is valued at a mere $158,520, and in 2008 pays an annual property tax of  ... are you ready? $258 -- less than a dollar a day!   On a property that would likely would have sold for at least $2,000,000 at the time of the recent revaluation.

Valuing "excess" land

I've come across another interesting group of assessments, just down the street from those in the post below this one.  They are at 320,  334,  336 and 333 Stamford Avenue.  (These are all "70% values" -- divide each by 0.7 to get to the market value the assessor is assigning.)

• 320 and 334 Stamford Avenue are each 10,000 square feet (0.23 acre), and is assessed at $536,970;
• 336 Stamford Avenue is 20,000 square feet (0.46 acre), and is assessed at $574,420;
• 333 Stamford Avenue is 30,000 square feet (0.69 acre), and is assessed at $628,110.

So the first 10,000 square feet in this immediate neighborhood is assessed at $536,970.  The incremental 10,000 square feet is $37,450 more -- 6.97%.  The difference between the 20,000 sq ft property and the 30,000 sf property is $53,690.  These values prevail until one reaches the direct waterfront properties -- despite the fact that every non-waterfront property that has even seasonal water views mentions that prominently in every real estate ad.