Municipal elections are now past and Councils, Mayors, Boards of Finance, Selectmen and all of the other various forms of leaders we employ in our Connecticut towns are feeling a bit less politically squeezed and, as predicted by myself and candidates in other towns, tax increase proposals from these leaders will be coming fast and furious as they deal with falling revenues in the only manner they have the political fortitude to employ, tax increases.

East Hartford Mayor Melody Currey on Tuesday night presented her budget in what to this observer seemed a nervously defensive tone. No doubt she was well aware that a tax increase of over 9% would not be met with smiles and commendations.

To the credit of the Mayor each year the public availability of budget information has increased and this year is no exception. In fact, this year the Mayor has presented the most complete set of information yet. So Mayor, while I won’t thank you for raising my taxes, thank you for providing me with the details I need to know the how and why behind the increase.

I encourage you to review the budget information on the town website.
BUDGET INFO

Budget sessions continue with the Board of Education on Thursday night at 6:30, an all day session Saturday starting at 8:30 and a Monday night finale starting at 6:30. These can be viewed in person at Town Hall, or on EHCTV Channel 5 on Comcast.

Citizens should keep in mind the public hearing on Wednesday, March 3rd at 7PM where we can express our concerns about this proposal as well as plans to REDUCE spending proportionally to the losses in revenue rather than continuing spending unabated.

I am happy to say that I have heard from a Town Council member who is at least as outraged about this proposal as I am. Maybe there is hope.

Melody,

It has been just over 2 weeks since I delivered 37 pages of supporting documents for my public hearing testimony to your office. Have you made any progress into your investigation regarding my testimony? I am particularly interested in the legal process followed in disposition of the property.

I recently received documents from the Town Council Office in response to an FOI Request which clearly demonstrate that the method used to dispose of the policy is not in accordance with Section 10-19 of the town ordinances. In light of this I would appreciate it if you would issue a recommendation to the Town Council that they rescind the motions approving the property transfer and giving pre-approval to a sales contract which were approved on June 16th, 2009 and recommend that the Investgation & Audit committee investigate the process employed by the Town of East Hartford in disposing of town owned (taxpayer owned) property.

The entirety of the FOI documents can be found here:

http://brainflation.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/foi-docs.pdf

Jon Searles
(860) 930-4149

Also I sought an update on the development status from Jeanne Webb. This is the update:

Jon - Our developer is waiting for the HUD NOFA to be announced.  As
soon as it is announced, they will be putting an application together.

We do not move to final disposition on Daley Court until all criteria
for the development have been met.

In the mean time, we have extended their developer status until February
1, 2010 or until the HUD application is approved, which ever is the
earlier of the 2 dates.

We do not have any scheduled meetings in the summer and will hold our
next meeting on September 16, 2009.

07/06/09 10:22AM

I have been informed by Paul Roczynski that hard copies will be
furnished to my office in the near future.  Thank you.

Mayor Melody A. Currey
(860) 291-7200
Town Hall
740 Main Street, East Hartford, CT  06108
mcurrey@ci.east-hartford.ct.us
www.ci.east-hartford.ct.us

All e-mails received or written at this address are subjected to the
Freedom of Information rules and regulations.

Today I filed 37 pages of the documentation I posted on the 22nd of June with the Mayor’s office along with the following letter.

Jonathan Searles
51 Spaulding Circle
East Hartford, CT 06118
July 6, 2009

Mayor Melody Currey
Town of East Hartford
740 Main Street
East Hartford, CT 06108

Dear Melody:

Attached are thirty seven pages of supporting documentation for my public testimony of June 16^th 2009 regarding the Daley Court property disposition.

No position on the Daley Court property transfer has been taken by the East Hartford Republican Town Committee and as such this is not an EHRTC issue. In the future any requests or questions you or the Town Council may have regarding my testimony or documentation should be communicated to me directly. Neither EHRTC Chairman Paul Roczynski nor the EHRTC have been involved at any point with my research, testimony or follow up on the property transfer and as such Mr. Roczynski is not a proper avenue for questions or communication on this issue.

Please distribute this letter and attached documentation to the Town Council and any other interested parties.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Searles
jsearles@underdeposit.com
(860) 930-4149

Melody,

I received a phone call from Republican Chairman Paul Roczynski this morning regarding my testimony at the Daley Court public Hearing on the 16th of June. He informs me that during a conversation between Paul and yourself you had expressed a concern that I had not yet provided you with documentation to support my public testimony.

The documentation as well as video of the hearing is and has been publicly available for viewing at the following address:
http://brainflation.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/daley-court-video-and-documents/

Please do not hesitate to ask for any documentation referenced that isn’t posted.

Jon Searles
(860) 930-4149

The response if any will be provided when received.

With almost 2 weeks having passed since the public hearing and subsequent action on the Daley Court property I am becoming concerned that the investigation which was promised at the meeting may have concluded before it was announced.

I have sent a request for a meeting, on the record, to the Mayor in hopes that the lingering questions can be resolved.

Melody,

I still have some concerns regarding the process by which the East Hartford Town Council came to their decision to transfer the title for 582(590) Burnside Avenue to the East Hartford Redevelopment Agency on Tuesday the 16th of June 2009. I can’t seem to find a singular or combined set of ordinances or state statutes that describe the process taken and the ones I’ve found seems to contradict the process employed by the Town Council.

I was encouraged by your statement on the 16th that you were going to look into the claims I made at the hearing starting on the morning of Wednesday the 17th. Unfortunately I have not heard anything more on this investigation and the as yet unresolved questions could have a serious impact upon the ability of the citizens to trust their government. Such a mistrust would be entirely undesirable.

I would like to meet with you, and any others who you feel may be helpful, on the record to discuss the specific legal process followed in the disposition of the property to the East Hartford Redevelopment Agency.

Also, I received and reviewed the discussion agenda for the Green Committee meeting I was unable to attend. I would look forward to a tour of the recycling facility. The last 2 weeks of July would work great.

Jon Searles
(860) 930-4149

The JI, Reminder and Gazette have mentioned the Daley Court events. Unfortunately due to the JI’s relatively recent subscriber model I can no longer link their stories.

http://www.remindernews.com/node/7/&town=easthartford&url=EASTH-2009-06-24-2-Ar00200

http://ehgazette.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=512:crow-demands-council-save-arts&catid=92:news&Itemid=377

I received a response to my request from the Mayor on 06/26/09 at 7:21 PM.

I am awaiting word from the state's attorney concerning next steps.
Depending on his reply, I will be in touch or his office will on this
issue.

Mayor Melody A. Currey
(860) 291-7200
Town Hall
740 Main Street, East Hartford, CT  06108
mcurrey@ci.east-hartford.ct.us
www.ci.east-hartford.ct.us

History shows that Mr. Horan reads this blog. Here is a challenge Mr. Horan, as Chairman of the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee, show me the law that WAS followed in the council’s disposition of the property because I have listed the law that I believe wasn’t.

Council Calls Public Hearing To Order
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2271804&dest=-1]

Chair of Redevelopment Agency Speaks
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2271847&dest=-1]

Developers Bill & Dan Speak
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2271869&dest=-1]

Jon Searles (Me) Speaks
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2272018&dest=-1]

Mayor Currey Addresses Council
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2272025&dest=-1]

Council Debates and Passes Transfer and Sale Motions
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2272154&dest=-1]

** If any of the below documents give you an error please update your adobe reader to 6.1 or better or let me know about the problem so I can down convert the document for compatibility.**

Town Fact Sheet
State Response to EHRA Eminent Domain 06-18-2001
State Refusal to Authorize Property Sale – 2000
Sheldon Oak Central Windfall Profit
RFP 08-043
Redevelopment Minutes 02-27-03
Property Card 2009
Property Card 2003
Koteen Offer 12-02-2002
Karno Letter Pushing Koteen 06-21-2002
HUD H 08-08
Hud 202 Guidebook
Hovanec EHHA appraisal 09-08-2000
GIS Property Card 2009
EHHA to EHRA update on deal 12-05-2000
EHHA to EHRA on expedition of emminent domain 07-02-2002
EHHA EHRA Solicitation 03-22-2000
East Hartford Town Ordinances Chapter 10 – Finance & Taxation
CGS 8-137
CGS 8-24
Certificate of Taking – Eminent Domain – 08-13-2002
Sheldon Oak 2007 990
New Samaritan 2007 990
EHRDA vs Beatman Emminent Domain 06-14-1999
EHRDA vs Karabetsos Emminent Domain 04-20-2000
ToEH vs EHHA Emminent Domain 07-19-2002
Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee FOI Appeal
Town Council Agendas Page 1
Town Council Agendas Page 2
Town Council Minutes
Town Council Subcommittees
Town Council Minutes 05-14
East Hartford Notices 04-15 to 05-11
East Hartford Notices 05-11 to 05-20

In the meantime I have a few comments.

First, I sincerely hope the Mayor is honestly going to start an investigation tomorrow. I have documents.

Second, if Mr. Kehoe was interested in the accuracy of any of my statements or information he could have asked me to demonstrate the information during my comments or when the questions arose. I was sitting right there. Instead he attempted to impugn my character, research and the accuracy of my data. It is evident based on the course he chose that finding out the truth was not his goal.

Third, I invite any media outlet to contact me to verify my information. My claims will stand, theirs wont.

Fourth, I am disappointed that the matter was not referred to the Investigation & Audit  Committee for review despite documentation to warrant it.

All in all it was a great night for the citizens of East Hartford because those on the council and in town hall are on notice that at least one person is watching.

This past Tuesday’s Town Council meeting was somewhat eventful with a decent discussion of what lies ahead for the dike repairs. According to Denise Horan, the town engineer, we have spent almost all of the original 7 million dollars we were told the project would cost back in 2007. She indicated that for the almost 7 million spent we have a host of engineering reports and surveys as well as some tree/vegetation/wildlife removal on the dike and little actual repair work. The total cost of the project has ballooned to 27 million dollars and even that is a number that could “wiggle” according to Horan.

Mayor Currey reported that she has word that Dodd is earmarking 15 million dollars in an upcoming energy bill for the East Hartford dike and another earmark for 2 million dollars has been stuck into an upcoming agriculture bill. Odd that they can’t allocate money with a simple “East Hartford Dike Repair” bill instead of spending the money on the sly.

In addition to that potential 18 million the town previously received a commitment from the State DEP for 4 million in reimbursements for approved projects which has and will fund dike repair costs and the Council approved the Mayor to enter into contract with the state for another 3 million dollars which would bring the state chip-in to 7 million dollars. Assuming the federal money doesn’t show up we’ll have a 13 million dollar hole to fill before this project can be completed.

Worse yet, the project completion deadline before our dike is de-certfied is February 22, 2010, a date the mayor is confident can’t be met. According to the mayor if the funding is lined up the earliest this project could be completed is by the end of the 2010 construction season, meaning fall 2010. We were assured that our federal legislators were diligently working on crafting an exemption for East Hartford.

The Fire Department has stepped up to the plate in response to the elimination of funding for maintenance items by identifying two FEMA grants which will pay about 90% of the cost for replacement of Engine #5, 50 SCUBA sets and 3 thermal imaging cameras which aid in identifying the location of fires. The sum of these three maintenance items would be about $669,000 but with the grants they will cost the department $60,850 which will be funded entirely from the existing Fire Department budget. The grant process is expected to take about a year.

The final interesting piece of the meeting came in the form of an approved motion to permit the finance director to refinance, to speak simply about a complicated process, up to 26 million dollars of outstanding bonds. The expected savings is between $125,000 and $600,000 over the remaining life of the bonds if the full amount were refinanced. It is important to note that Mr. Walsh, the finance director, was not optimistic about then entire amount being possible to refinance due to market conditions and it’s unclear how the bottom line savings would be adjusted by a reduction in the amount refinanced. None of the council members saw fit to ask.

Jon,

Thank you for your recent e-mail suggesting that the Town's Pension Plan
invest in Town Tax Liens.

While the investment of pension plan funds rests solely with the 5
member Town Retirement Board led by Town Treasurer Joseph Carlson, I
would be reluctant to recommend your strategy to them for the following
reasons:

Statutory:

Connecticut General Statutes Chapter 112 section 7-400 is the starting
place for guidance on municipal investments.  Unrated tax liens are not
a municipally allowed investment by statute.

Liquidity:

While the 18% investment returns you cite are attractive, such rates of
return must be realized, and while the town would have priority as you
have pointed out, the ability to efficiently monitor and possibly
dispose of these properties through a long foreclosure process would be
difficult and outside of the annual goals and objectives I have set for
departments.

Not a core competency for local government:

The function of overseeing properties where the town held the tax lien
is not a core competency of the town, meaning that acting as a property
maintainer, if even for a short time, would not be a process in which
the town would excel.

Liability under "Prudent Man":

A Pension Plan's Board is measured by a variety of competencies, and one
such measurement is the "Prudent Man" rule.  In short, could investing
in a non-graded local tax lien be deemed imprudent by taxpayers or
employees, subjecting the plan and town to litigation?  I believe the
potential is there.

So in summary, while the information you point out in your request is
accurate, the town would have considerable obstacles in the form of
statutory, liquidity, core competency, and liability, among others not
mentioned here in order to make this a consideration of the Retirement
Board.

Jon, I thank you again for reaching out.

Melody

I was very disheartened to see the disinformation campaign that came out of the Mayor’s office in response to Councilman Thompson’s letter in the Gazette encouraging residents to appeal their assessments. The Mayor and her representatives, including the Tax Assessor, have been attempting to use the ambiguity of our great English language and the general ignorance of the CT General Statutes which exists in the citizenry to convince us that we don’t have the right to appeal our assessments. That is wrong and they know it.

From CGA 12-62(b)(1):

The town shall use assessments derived from each such revaluation for the purpose of levying property taxes for the assessment year in which such revaluation is effective and for each assessment year that follows until the ensuing revaluation becomes effective.

This is the section that the Mayor, her legal counsel and the tax assessor claim as the rule that sets your assessment to the revaluation value and disallows an assessment appeal based on the 16+ percent decline in the value of your property since the last revaluation. I can only believe that these three are being intentionally obtuse on this issue. The fault in their logic is clearly defined when time is taken to read the entirety of the statutes in question. One major issue comes from their interpretation of the word derived. They are defining derived to mean “the same as”. Derived has no legal definition, so here are few common dictionary definitions from the web:

Princeton Wordnet:
develop or evolve from a latent or potential state

Dictionary.com
to receive or obtain from a source or origin

A synonym of derived is “educe” which means “to infer or deduce”.

As you can see derived does not mean “same as”. When something is derived it is developed or built upon from a source. In the case of your assessment this means that the revaluation value is modified by data pertinent to the assessment to derive the current assessment. This interpretation, unlike the Mayor’s, is supported by other language in the statutes.  First, had the legislation been intended to do as the Mayor et al. suggested the word derived would not need to appear in the language of the statute at all. Instead it would read:

The town shall use assessments from each such revaluation for the purpose of levying property taxes for the assessment year in which such revaluation is effective and for each assessment year that follows until the ensuing revaluation becomes effective.

Do you see how that one word changes the entire paragraph? The second support comes from CGS 12-55(b) which reads as follows:

Prior to taking and subscribing to the oath upon the grand list, the assessor or board of assessors shall equalize the assessments of property in the town, if necessary, and make any assessment omitted by mistake or required by law. The assessor or board of assessors may increase or decrease the valuation of any property as reflected in the last-preceding grand list, or the valuation as stated in any personal property declaration or report received pursuant to this chapter. In each case of any increase in valuation of a property above the valuation of such property in the last-preceding grand list, or the valuation, if any, stated by the person filing such declaration or report, the assessor or board of assessors shall mail a written notice of assessment increase to the last-known address of the owner of the property the valuation of which has increased. All such notices shall be subject to the provisions of subsection (c) of this section. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a notice of increase shall not be required in any year with respect to a registered motor vehicle the valuation of which has increased. In the year of a revaluation, the notice of increase sent in accordance with subsection (f) of section 12-62 shall be in lieu of the notice required by this section

This section clearly demonstrates that the current assessment is set each and every year and can vary year to year separate from a change based on revaluation. If your assessment increases the assessor must specifically give notice of your right to appeal, but it exists regardless of any notice received from the assessor and regardless of whether your assessment goes up, down or remains the same. This clearly voids the reasoning given to us by the Mayor and others.

As I commented on the Gazette website, I understand the knee jerk reaction to Mr. Thompson’s letter. Imagine if say 100 of the 1000’s of households in East Hartford appealed their assessment and succeeded.  Based on the average reval assessment and a 20% decline in value since the reval the town would stand to lose $79,112 in revenue. Imagine now if the number of appeals reached 1000 or if some of the higher valued neighborhoods started appealing. The town’s tax and spend history would catch up with it rapidly. Fear is no excuse for lies, especially from our elected representatives. It is inexcusable for the Mayor and her representatives to be misinforming the citizenry in the manner which they been on this issue.

Could it be that the Mayor gets it? Does she understand now the reality that East Hartford Taxpayers can no longer afford annual tax increases? Maybe it’s just the reality of an election year but we can hope.

My only gripe so far is that too much of the budget is balanced on the municipal side. In my opinion the schools should carry a larger portion of the cuts since it is the schools which have grown unchecked and bankrupted this town. Not forcing the BoE to go back and craft yet a leaner budget is a missed opportunity and one which may have repercussions as state legislators continue their budget work. It is a very real possibility that school funding may yet be cut.

You’ll find when you look through the Capital Improvement Plan for example that the regular annual maintenance items, such as town vehicle rotation have been eliminated. This means we aren’t really saving money. Instead we are putting off maintenance spending and ensuring a future tax increase when emergency replacements are needed.

See the chart from the proposed budget below for a quick and dirty look at how the budget is spent. Let’s see how the council handles the budget now. Will they insist that the maintenance items be restored after making a specific point about how they are necessary because previous administrations put them off during last year’s budget season? If so will they insist that the BoE cover the gap or will they raise taxes?

I have yet to go through all 240 or so pages of the budget to find the gimmick reductions but I have no doubt they are there after seeing the cuts in maintenance. Hopefully the council will address any gimmicks in a manner that both supports the town’s infrastructure and prevents extra burden on the taxpayer.

You can find the budget information here:

2010 Budget Information

The town has also made the full detailed budget available this year for the first time. I provided it last year after converting it to a usable format. If you are in the mood for reviewing the entire 240 some odd pages then get it here:

2010-budget-detail

Despite the annual drop in the list the Mayor has submitted budget after budget which increases the spending of the town without regard for the tax impact on the citizens. Last year some of the council members were declaring victory that the mill rate had fallen despite the fact that the actual tax impact on East Hartford Residents had never been higher.

Now, almost 12 months later foreclosures have become an epidemic and the per household tax burden is approaching $400 per month. Could the two be related? You be the judge.

The newly release Net Taxable Grand List is $3,103,953,346 down $43,013,279 from $3,146,966,625 for the 08/09 budget year. When multiplied by the 98% collection rate that gives the town $3,041874,279 of property to base the mill rate on.

To maintain the same level of spending as 08/09 which was itself an abusive budget tax increases are required.

So far the Mayor has revealed a drop in Non-Tax Revenue of 3.2 million of 08/09 which we’ll assume will exist in 09/10 as well. That brings the Non-Tax Revenue estimate to $55,622,281 reducing portion of the 08/09 spending level of $155,830,432 which needs to be raised through property tax to $100,208151. That means a minimum mill rate of 32.94 to maintain spending. That translates to an average tax increase of $184 or $15/month per household. That’s 4% in one year. How many residents lost their jobs, forget received a 4% increase in wages. As a portion of household income property tax would represent burden of 11.52%  up from 11.07% in 08/09. At this growth rate the local property tax burden will equal 14% of the average household income within 5 years.

This picture will get worse as PILOT, ECS and grant money dries up. It’s also going to be magnified many fold if the BoE doesn’t get it’s act together and commit to a serious trimming of fat in the East Hartford education district. So far the BoE has offered no substance to indicate they understand the problem.

What our officials need to do is draw a line. They need to understand that a ZERO increase in all areas of the budget is the starting point this year. They need to pare down from there. To even pretend to be serious about the plight of the businesses and residents of East Hartford our officials must cut spending by $3.9 Million. To properly govern they probably ought to pare at least 3 times that and, as unpopular as it will be with those who have a vested interest, most needs to come from the education side.

The Mayor’s public statements so far have been encouraging, but given the history of East Hartford’s government I’d be surprised if they could even hold the budget, forget implementing the reductions required to prevent a tax increase.

The JI has coverage of Wednesday’s events online now and I expect they’ll have some coverage of today’s events online tomorrow. The story is here.

Based on my conversations this evening with people from both sides it sounds like this issue has a long way to go before the preliminary injunction request is resolved. Experts are needed and probably more days in court later this year or even into next year. This means that for now the town’s regulations as they apply to Masters Club and all adult establishments still stand and Masters Club is not coming to Roberts Streets in the near future.

From what I’ve heard the case presented by Coleman was lacking any real punch on the issue of statements that may have been made by the Mayor and witnesses listed on the witness list never made it to the stand or even the court room.

For today East Hartford is the victor, if only by a lack of a ruling. I’ll take it.
It’s a good thing I didn’t try to go see the hearing while I was in New Haven Tuesday after all. The hearing actually happened in Bridgeport so I never would have found it. 

UPDATE
The Judge has made an order following the three day hearing:

SCHEDULING ORDER: Following three days of hearings on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and after conferring with counsel, the Court hereby issues the following scheduling order: Plaintiff will disclose its experts and provide Defense counsel with a 26(a) report by November 17, 2008. Plaintiff may also depose Defendants’ consultant or other fact witnesses during this time period. Defendants will depose Plaintiff’s experts by December 15, 2008. Defendants will then disclose their experts and provide Plaintiff’s counsel with a 26(a) report by January 21, 2009. (If Defendants choose not to use expert witnesses, counsel should notify the Court as soon as possible, but no later than January 21, 2009.) Plaintiff will depose these defense experts by February 21, 2009. The hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction will be continued on March 2-4, 2009. If, however, Defendants decide not to use any expert witnesses, the Court has set aside January 27-29, 2009, for the continuation of the Preliminary Injunction hearing. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge William I. Garfinkel on 9/18/2008. (Smith, M.) (Entered: 09/18/2008)

Basically, it will be early March of 2009 before Masters Club can even hope to get an OK to go ahead. Although if they are successful in challenging the last amendment to the zoning regulations this may not hold true since the special permit would be in force again along with all it’s unconstitutionality.

UPDATE #2

The JI has added another article on the hearing as expected.

I happened on a copy of the letter from Mr. Chu to the Mayor, which was Cc’d but not timely delivered or in some cases not delivered at all to commissioners and councilmen, where he references the deal he made to the Mayor.

Notice that this letter does not bear a stamp from the Town Clerk. Is it common practice for official correspondence to NOT be stamped and recorded?

As the person from the strip club side explained Mr. Chu was unable to sign this letter before it was delivered to the Mayor, presumably by his counsel, because he was out of state on business. This is a confirmed correspondence.

Note, I have removed Mr. Chu’s phone number for obvious reasons.

While this letter may not appear to say a whole lot I’m informed the letter for legal reasons could not contain details and Mayor Currey was let in on it’s secret details. Word has it that this deal has a very short shelf life. Once either the Masters Club or Pitkin Street start their active court battle (September) the mutual benefit derived from their coming together as businessmen and settling will no longer exist.

Something that has bugged me since the last hearing was the suggestion, though I don’t recall of the top of my head if it was Dayton or Gerard who said it, that commissioners must follow the rules for ex parte communication and could not discuss the zoning application with anyone until the public hearing resumes next week. That struck me as a gag order and bad government so I looked up our ex parte ordinance.

From Section 15-13 of the ordinances:

An official, officer, or employee shall not consider any ex parte or private communications from any person, which he or she knows is or reasonably may be intended to influence unlawfully the decision on the merits of any matter where a determination is required by law to be made on the record after opportunity for hearing to interested parties.

It seems clear from the above that a communication in itself regarding the application is not a violation of the ex parte rules. In fact it seems the ex parte rules don’t preclude the commissioners from talking to anyone about the application unless they know they may be about to receive a bribe, extortion attempt, threat or some similar form of unlawful influence.

The full public hearing video from Thursday night is now available at the bottom of this post, have a look.

I have long thought there was something fishy floating around this whole strip club thing. This whole thing seemed way too political which just doesn’t mesh with a multi-million dollar business deal. Politicians and businessmen do not think alike. My suspicions were confirmed recently when an unnamed (until they decide to come forward officially) person from the strip club side of the aisle filled me in on a bit of the history. Here is the gist of what was conveyed.

It seems that this whole lawsuit issue came about when Masters Club LLC originally sought to follow the proper procedure to get approvals during the purchasing process of the Roberts Street location while the property was under contract. According to the source Masters Club spoke with persons of top authority in town who overstepped their proper role and jurisdiction by unequivocally telling Masters Club that there was no way their type of business could open and a permit could not even be filed.

Masters Club decided that the particular location, whose features are unmatchable in this area, was too valuable to give up on and decided to fight for their right to apply for a permit. They filed a lawsuit and here we are.

Now, this is where things begin to get bad for us as residents. The Mayor was quick to come out in the media with assurances that our zoning and ordinances were both legal and enforceable in court. To this day her public stance is that our ordinances and zoning will win in court. At the same time the ordinances were stripped from the town code and plans were made for rezoning. If our current regulations were enforceable why strip them? If our zoning was fine, why change it?

It’s important to realize that this whole process has been going on since about last October and according to this person multiple olive branches have been extended to resolve the issue in a win/win manner. One such branch came in the form of a letter (which prompted a meeting in which the deal was denied by the Mayor) to the Mayor which was CC’d for the P&Z and Council. It appears that this letter, which included an offer that seems too good to refuse, was withheld from the P&Z members until recently and it’s not known for sure if all council members have seen it even today. This letter, to my knowledge, despite being weeks old has not been received through the town clerk yet.

What was the offer? In exchange for allowing Masters Club to locate on Roberts Street Pitkin Street Entertainment (Kahoots) would cease to exist through a private deal between Pitkin St and Masters Club. The letter clearly said that if accepted Masters Club would be the ONLY club in town. There were no details on the plight of the Venus, though I’m sure it was discussed in the private meeting.

To date we have a moratorium that is expiring in October, no ordinances to protect our neighborhoods, a zoning plan that is guaranteed to lose in court next month and rushed and poorly thought out zoning proposals that will deny Masters Club their location at the expense of our neighborhoods.

It seemed pretty clear why the North Meadows/Prestige Park zones were a bad idea. They would totally alter the atmosphere and quality of life of the neighborhoods targeted. That plan was shot down, and I’m grateful.

Now the plan before the P&Z would do the same exact thing as the last plan but it’s being given a less dangerous sounding description, removal of special permit requirements. Well, the fact is that removal of the special permit requirements with only a 1000′ buffer between adult establishment requirement would open much more of the town to adult businesses than the last plan would. Consider this GIS map which I posted previously.

I understand the logic behind these zoning choices. It’s true that these zone changes may in fact not allow a location that Masters Club or Pitkin St wants, but the danger is that they may create many locations that another Venus Lounge would gladly accept. It makes no sense whatever to block one or two clubs by legislating an invitation for seedier joints to come to town.

As I see it there a handful of certainties that face us.

1. Mr. Gerard is right, if we do nothing we lose anyway.

2. The choices that have been put before us are not the best choices possible.

3. Politics are obscuring the most obvious and beneficial resolution to this problem.

4. The majority of people polled think Roberts Street is the best place for a strip club in town.

5. Despite direction from the Mayor to officials to keep the public informed she herself has not been straight forward and citizens have been excluded at every step through executive mid-day meetings and secret deal sessions. I fail to see the need for executive joint P&Z/Council sessions to discuss zoning and ordinance strategy which according to Mr. Dayton at the last hearing is not being done directly for either lawsuit. At every step we hear one thing only to find the story is belied by their official actions.

To sum up my thoughts, when dealing with businessmen you must act like a businessman. When listening to politicians, remember that’s what they are.

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1879378848442215125&hl=en]

The team gathered to announce the impending salvation of, or at least lip service to, foreclosure assistance. As you may or may not know the legislature passed a foreclosure relief bill which was subsequently signed by the governor. Here are some highlights:

• The state through CHFA will use our tax dollars to buy foreclosed properties to resell at discount to targeted buyers or use for public housing.

• The state through CHFA will make mortgage payments on behalf of approved persons experiencing a “financial hardship” despite the fact that such hardship insurance is and has been privately available to these persons and they declined to purchase it. The state may pay an approved person’s mortgage for as long as FIVE YEARS.

(7) “Financial hardship due to circumstances beyond the mortgagor’s control” means: A significant reduction of at least twenty-five per cent of aggregate family household income which reasonably cannot be or could not have been alleviated by the liquidation of assets by the mortgagor, including, but not limited to, a reduction resulting from (i) unemployment or underemployment of one or more of the mortgagors; (ii) a loss, reduction or delay in receipt of such federal, state or municipal benefits as Social Security, supplemental security income, public assistance and government pensions;  (iii) a loss, reduction or delay in receipt of such private benefits as pension, disability, annuity or retirement benefits;  (iv) divorce or a loss of support payments;  (v) disability, illness or death of a mortgagor; (vi) uninsured damage to the mortgaged property which affects liveability and necessitates costly repairs; or (vii) expenses related to the disability, illness or death of a member of the mortgagor’s family, but is not related to accumulation of installment debt incurred for recreational or nonessential items prior to the occurrence of the alleged circumstances beyond the mortgagor’s control in an amount that would have caused the mortgagor’s total debt service to exceed sixty per cent of aggregate family income at that time; or (B) a significant increase in the dollar amount of the periodic payments required by the mortgage;

• The state will spend 2.5 MILLION dollars on job training programs for persons in foreclosure to the exclusion of those needing job training who don’t happen to be delinquent on a mortgage.

• The state through the judicial branch will hire 13 loan mediators at a price tag of over 150 THOUSAND DOLLARS EACH per year. These mediators are intended to renegotiate repayment terms with borrowers and lenders. Connecticut experienced 23,470 foreclosures last year according to Realty Trac which would have provided a workload of 1,805 foreclosures per mediator. It’s clear that this was poorly thought out and is doomed to fail from the start. The mediators are grossly overpaid, overloaded and replacing a service that already exists in the private market.

• A non-prime lender may not refinance a person out of a “special” mortgage unless the borrower attends counseling. This is a ridiculous overstepping into the borrowers private financial life and an unacceptable imposition.

“special mortgage” means a loan originated, subsidized or guaranteed by or through a state, federal, tribal or local government, or nonprofit organization.

• A non-prime lender is not permitted to include a pre-payment penalty on a loan or any provision which increases the interest rate on default. I’ve never seen the latter except in my credit card agreements, but disallowing pre-payment penalties will result in a direct increase in the interest rate to compensate. Borrowers have been able to waive pre-payment on most loans all along at the cost of a higher rate. The only difference now is that the higher rate will be the only rate.

The biggest thing to note in this long law is the total absence of any form of relief from the impositions the government places on homeowners. They have placed the burden of foreclosure relief solely on the lenders, brokers and banks as well as the taxpayers of Connecticut.

The state has failed to do anything about burdensome property taxes which at least here in East Hartford account for a full 3-4 months of mortgage payments each year. They have done nothing about income taxes or car taxes. They have done nothing about job creation. What they have created are new bureaucracies which will feed on taxpayer dollars and in turn further increase the crushing tax load which is pushing many into foreclosure.

As proud as I’m sure our representatives were to announce their excitement at having finally cracked the foreclosure problem open, I’d rather they had read this bill, found real solutions and sat this press conference out.