A recent article in the Stamford Advocate, Dodd touts transit-funding bill in Stamford (3/25)
STAMFORD - During an appearance yesterday at the Urban Transitway construction site, U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., called for major national investment in roads, trains, bridges and other infrastructure.
Dodd came to town to promote his bill that would set up an independent national bank for such projects. The bank would designate regionally significant projects for loans, loan guarantees or other financial help and issue tax-exempt bonds to finance them.
Dodd said the United States needs a national policy and a dedicated funding stream for maintaining infrastructure, rather than leaving it to politicians to fight for money for individual projects.
It may be a dry topic, but it's important, he said.
"It normally glazes over the eyes of the most determined listener," Dodd said. "I'm proud to be in a city that cares about it."
Hey! There is an easy and smart solution to the problem he poses.
Look down. The revenue source is under our feet. The value of our land is created by our common spending -- be it from local sources such as taxes on real estate, state "aid" funded by a sales or wage tax, or federal "pork" funded from the federal income tax such as highway or other transportation infrastructure; by population increase, be it from local fertility, from young families seeking larger homes than they can afford in Manhattan, from immigration from other parts of the US, or immigration from other parts of the world; and by improvements in technology, such as air conditioning, earthquake-resistant or hurricane-resistant building techniques, elevators, etc; by the general level of activity in the local economy and national economy (the health of which is influenced by our policies).
Every worthwhile pork project creates far more in land value than it costs. But stupidly, we leave that land value mostly in private pockets, rather than collecting it as local treasure via the property tax.
"A dedicated funding stream" ... Yup. All we'd need to do is raise the millage rate on land value, and we'd have that funding stream. Don't raise the millage rate on buildings. Lower it, or eliminate it completely. Just tax the land value.
Dodd said he picked Stamford because it's in a congested part of the state that shows the need for transit-oriented projects to reduce delays in daily commutes. He noted that he has worked with Mayor Dannel Malloy for years in getting funding for infrastructure and economic development projects.
Malloy said the senator initiated yesterday's appearance. The transitway site shows the kind of project Dodd wants to see replicated, Malloy said. Groundbreaking was held in September for the transitway, a road project that will link the Stamford train station with buildings in the city's South End.
Who benefits? The corporations in Stamford whose properties are served by existing infrastructure and get better connected to existing infrastructure via the transitway. Those -- individuals and businesses -- whose properties are along the transit way. Some will choose to use those properties to offer services that commuters want. We ought to encourage that sort of thing. Certainly we should be collecting from those landholders -- whether they choose to utilize their properties fully or not -- the economic value of the sites. THAT is the dedicated funding stream, whether our Senator sees it or not.
Dodd said the United States reduced infrastructure spending after significant projects of the last century, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, rural electrification and the interstate highway system.
He and U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., introduced the bill last August. In a statement, they said more infrastructure spending is needed to keep the United States competitive. They cited traffic-clogged highways and ports that are backed up because of expanding international trade, as well as wastewater systems that are 50 to 100 years old.
How are we going to finance maintenance of our ports and highways? By collecting a few percent of the market value of the land each year. That spending on maintenance is what keeps the ports and highways producing jobs locally. Why should anyone other than the property holders pay for it, and why should it be paid for in proportion to anything other than each's holding of land value?
Comments