Connecticut

While running into a local grocery store to grab a couple of supplies this evening, I had to pause for a moment and wonder if I was in California, rather than Connecticut.

You see, I was stopped heading in by a gentleman looking for signatures on a petition.

It seems that the petitioning has begun in Connecticut to get Nader on the November ballot.

Of course, I signed…not because of any fondness for Nader, but because the folks who write ballot access laws seem to succumb to conflict of interest, and write such pesky legislation so as to maintain the advantages currently enjoyed by the D/R duopoly, and I’d like to do my part to fight against such tyranny.

I am plagued with having too many interests (hence the lack of focus on this blog).   Two of my older interests have been architecture and conservation.   If I had come of age either a little bit earlier or later, and if architecture paid a bit better, I could be designing many of the green properties that I just settle for reading about.

Over the weekend, the New York Times asked the question, “How ‘Green’ Can a Huge House Be?“, framed with the context of a 7,000 square foot home recently built as a model for a new “green” subdivision in North Stamford, CT.   It’s seeking LEED certification to confirm its “greenness”.

This leads to the interesting question of whether large homes can, by their nature, be considered “green”.

On the one hand, it’s definitely possible to design and build a mansion that is far more energy-efficient, and significantly less environmentally destructive than your average McMansion.

On the other hand, there is a large, and seemingly increasingly vocal movement which argues that large homes are symptomatic of an environmentally destructive consumption-driven culture.  The thinking goes that “we” want big homes to store and show off all our “stuff”.  The material required to build and maintain those big homes, and to acquire and assemble that stuff is destructive…and gee wouldn’t the world be a better place if we were less attached to our stuff, and therefore were comfortable in much smaller, more sustainable Ikea-furnished homes.    Under this school of thought, “big” and “green” are mutually exclusive.

The New York Times story mentions the compromise that LEED tries to strike:

The standards released in December settled on a “home size adjustment” formula that makes it progressively harder for homes larger than the designated average (2,850 square feet for a five-bedroom house) to meet LEED thresholds in categories like energy efficiency, indoor air quality and minimization of construction waste. Smaller houses, on the other hand, are rewarded with lower thresholds.

So, for example, a 2,500-square-foot three-bedroom house would have to earn about 30 points to qualify for the basic level of LEED certification (higher thresholds are called silver, gold and platinum), while the Windermere model home has to earn closer to 60 points to compensate for its size, said Matthew Nielsen, the project’s development manager.

Personally, I agree with the sentiment that “big” probably isn’t “green”….in principle.   However, I think that green supporters ought to take a more pragmatic approach.

Right now, one of the bigger challenges facing the “greening” of America is, I think, the fact that “green” also means “expensive”.   Until conservation becomes second-nature enough to Americans to move beyond “green” being mostly limited to trendy, boutique marketplaces, that’s the way it will remain.

One of the ways to promote that trend is to increase demand to the point where supply ramps up, and marginal costs decline.   And, one of the ways to do that is to let the trendsetters set the trend with their larger disposable incomes, and watch the benefits trickle down eventually to the hoi-polloi.

Given current attitudes, those trendsetters are likely going to buy a big house when house-shopping.  If their mega-house is trendily “green” (ignoring its size), great!   However, I’d be surprised if too many folks in that market would opt for a smaller footprint in the name of greenness.

If demand for green features at the high end of the real estate market means that green features eventually start becoming standard in more of the real estate market…that’d be a net gain for all of us.

In that context, I think it’s best to somewhat overlook the fact that “big” isn’t very green.

Getting folks to think about how to make their current lifestyles a bit greener, is probably a better recipe for success than seeking to convert Americans en masse to asceticism in the name of the environment.

About a month ago, I offered some thoughts on federal taxes as part of my Centrist’s Platform.  Today, I’d like to visit the local side of the tax puzzle, here in Connecticut.

Specifically — I have a gripe with property taxes in Connecticut.

In this state, the primary source of revenue for the 169 towns of Connecticut are property taxes.   Sure, the municipalities derive some income from miscellaneous fees, and state block grants also provide an important source of revenue…but by and large it is property taxes and municipal expenditures that dominate our thoughts at budget referendum time (at least in those towns that hold public budget referenda).

Unfortunately, towns are generally rather limited in what they can do with their property taxes.  With only a few exceptions, it’s one mill-rate for all, with periodic mandatory revaluations.  It sounds fine at first glance, until you consider the shocks that can come different types of property values changing at different rates…and what those disparities can do to individuals’ property tax bills, and the impact that those shocks can have to folks on fixed incomes or of stretched means.

(Disclosure: I’m aware of this because in the last revaluation, my property taxes went up 25% — just over $1,000 — when the town average increase was only 5%.  I’m expecting similar news with the next revaluation.)

If there were one change I could make to Connecticut’s tax system, it would be to reform how municipal income is derived.  Some changes I’d be interested in seeing would include:

• Permit towns to vary the mill rate by class of property (owner-occupied, residential rental, commercial, industrial, agricultural, etc.)
   
• Permit towns to cap the changes to individual property tax bills, for some (e.g. increase the mill rate by 5%, but limit individual property increases to 10%).  It’s true that some will perceive the potential for identical properties to receive different-sized tax bills as being unfair.  However, if the cap is set above the average change (i.e., if you don’t see the full impact of a change one year, you’re at least moving towards it), you’ll avoid the problem you have in, say, Florida where huge discrepancies are emerging, while promoting some measure of stability to protect those less able to absorb nasty shocks.
   
• Of course, over-dependence on property taxes has some unfortunate consequences, including incenting overdevelopment of commercial and industrial areas.  I would argue that the towns could stand some diversification of revenue.  For example, perhaps some thought should be given to letting towns piggyback onto the state sales tax — charging an extra 1-2% in lieu of some of the property tax burden, if town residents so desire.
   
  For example, I can easily imagine the town leaders in Manchester and South Windsor, who regularly complain about all the out-of-town folks coming into their towns to shop draining the resources through increased wear-and-tear on town streets and increased demand for police services, finding a sales tax option attractive.
   
• Similarly, I would think that permitting towns to piggyback onto the state income tax in lieu of part of the property tax burden, might not be a bad idea….particularly when many towns have concerns about protecting the fixed-income folks from revaluation shocks.

Of course, the biggest change I’d be interested in seeing isn’t a tax change.  With 169 incorporated towns in the state, there is a lot of duplication of services for each and every municipality.  I wish CT towns would get over their excessive municipal pride, and make greater use of pooled resources.  Perhaps many towns should just outright merge, for efficiency’s sake….

Of course, this being Connecticut, none of this will ever happen.  But I can wish, can’t I?

The Courant is reporting the results of the first poll I’ve seen since primary season started of how Nutmegger voters are leaning for our Super Tuesday primary.

Among Dems:

• Hillary: 41%
• Obama: 27%
• Undecided: 21%
• Edwards: 9%
• Gravel: 0%
• Kucinich: 0%

Among the GOP:

• McCain: 39%
• Undecided: 17%
• Giuliani: 16%
• Romney: 11%
• Huckabee: 8%
• Thompson: 6%
• Ron Paul: 2%

So, among Dems there doesn’t seem to be much change from the last poll I saw for CT. Over on the GOP side, however, it seems that momentum has clearly shifted from CT being a runaway state for Giuliani to being a runaway state for McCain.

While Real Clear Politics seems to be the preferred source of summary polling data for online pundits, I’ll take this opportunity to note that Electoral-Vote.com seems to be dusting off its site, and is providing a map to summarize the latest polls.

Seen at Insurance Journal:

Acknowledging the ongoing concern over coastal property insurance in his state, Connecticut Insurance Commissioner Thomas Sullivan maintained that the state’s coastal property insurance market is in pretty good shape with more than 100 insurers still writing in the state, even though the cost of coverage is high.

“We have a problem with affordability, not availability. Some increases are steep but we do have a competitive market,” he said, suggesting markets in neighboring New York and Massachusetts are much worse.

Of course, anyone who’s looked at a map and has some understanding of hurricane exposure would think that’s somewhat obvious.

After all, coastal Connecticut is “coastal” only to Long Island Sound, and is somewhat protected by being 50 miles away from open ocean. Long Island and Cape Cod are far more exposed than New Haven or New London.

CTNewsJunkie carried a post discussing some consumer advocates’ concerns about the Charter Oak health plan proposed by Governor Rell. Quoting the CTNewsJunkie post:

Mrs. Rell proposed the plan, touted as a public-private partnership between managed care organizations and the state, last December. At that time, she said her administration would develop “an affordable, accessible product,” with a premium of about $250 per month. The plan received one public hearing in February, before the legislature passed it as part of a larger implementer bill in July.[...]

Advocates also argue that what the state has put forward up to this point will likely be unattractive to the uninsured, “given its limited benefits and questionable consumer protections.”

There is a proposed limited drug benefit of only $2,500 a year and a $2,000 a year benefit for medical equipment.[...]

Mr. Dearborn said the plan was “not proposed as the Rolls Royce of programs.” And it was by no means meant to be “universal” coverage, he said. He said it’s “affordable, credible coverage,” for those unable to obtain health benefits from their employers or aren’t old enough to qualify for Medicare.

And nestled in there I see a sign that maybe someone’s about to “get it” on the health care issue in the U.S.—that the problem isn’t strictly a high level of uninsureds in the population, but instead that health care is awfully darned expensive, and getting worse.

Attempting to address that with insurance is aggravated by calls for mandatory enhancements that potentially drive up the cost of providing cover, aggravating the situation.

And even if political consensus is achieved to spread the costs of a few across the population of an entire state, medical cost inflation is such that the burden will become significantly heavier than most people expect pretty darn quickly.

Focusing on expanding health insurance is an extremely myopic stance to take. While it may be part of a solution, there needs to be some debate and consensus-building on what can be done to control costs and manage future inflation.

And, dare I say it, perhaps there ought to be some public debate on whether we, as a society, are willing to always fund the latest, greatest, sexiest, and usually most-expensive medical treatments that Americans feel that they’re entitled to. Perhaps some thought should be given to whether that goal needs to be de-entitled….or at least reserved for when more cost-effective treatments aren’t effective?

Seen in Insurance Journal:

Mastropietro, chairman of the state’s Workers Compensation Commission, suggested that revisions passed in 1993 after what he termed a “bloodbath” between business and labor were good for businesses and have led to lower, more predictable costs for employers and the system. The changes included a one-third cut in benefits for injured workers.

Since then, labor has largely been frustrated in its efforts to rollback the 1993 cuts. But now, Mastropietro suggested, the political climate is changing and most of the bills to restore benefits that lawmakers have rejected have been gradually winning more support over the past five years.

The article cites a change in law requiring comp benefits to be offset by Social Security payments as evidence of political climate shift (although, the five-year delay between date of injury and the start of SSDI benefits in my wife’s case has me wondering how significant a change that really is….).

Also cited is a measure that came up that would have extended the number of weeks that benefits can be collected for partial permanent disabilities.

I can understand legislators’ desire to help folks injured on the job, but it also seems prudent to wonder if those same legislators’ consider the potential fallout of some of the measures they’ve apparently been considering.