Just three questions…
Over the next several weeks – until Election Day, Nov. 5, the city will see Republican challenger Michelle Gregorio faceoff against first-term incumbent Mayor Nancy Rossi for the mayoralty. In the next several weeks, then, the public could and should expect both candidates to layout a comprehensive platform as to what voters can expect should one or the other be elected.
For our part, we believe three major questions should be answered by both candidates, and those answers should be the basis of determining who should sit in the third floor office at City Hall over the next two years:
The city’s financial crisis – This situation has been the driving force in city affairs for more than a quarter-century. Since the city was found to be bankrupt in 1992, taxes, spending and expansion of the city’s tax base have dominated concerns of our residents. Indeed, all political issues center around this.
West Haven has been treading water or plugging holes. Either taxes were raised or kept steady to maintain the status quo, or inventive bookkeeping and tricks were used to make it appear as if we were balancing our books. We need only remember the bonding frenzy of the early 2000s when money that was bonded and the ancillary costs were used to plug budgetary gaps. And all administrations have used – for two decades – unattainable collection rates in taxes just to make it appear as if we were spending as much as we were taking into our coffers. The Municipal Accountability Review Board (MARB) has pretty much stopped the practice, looking for more realistic numbers.
Rapped up into the financial problem is the development problem. With taxes high, and getting higher under the MARB’s mandated five-year plan how does a city attract developers and businesses? It is a problem that has plagued us since the first financial crisis in the 1990s and has continued.
Both candidates have stated development and expansion of the tax base are major components of their platforms. To this point, however, both have used broad terms in making those claims. We hope, over the next couple of weeks, to hear details and plans that are not only viable, but operational. Platitudes won’t cut it here.
Charter Revision – With the question of revision not going on the November ballot, we want ironclad assurances the candidates are on-board with the alterations as outlined by the Charter Revision Commission. It was pure sloth that put us in the situation we now find ourselves, with the issue going past the winter months and possibly not being decided by the voters until spring.
The charter revisions are innovative and will change the political landscape. The fact the vote will now be after the election changes the dynamic. Both candidates should be clear as to whether they support or reject the package of revisions, and why they take the stand they do. It is too important a question to allow for non-answers or ambiguous statements. It is a time for clarity.
Quality of life – Besides the political issues, we want both candidates to express their visions for the future of the city, and how to address the quality of life here beyond general comments or feel-good statements. What will they do to make life here better? It is not a difficult question, but it can be a pivotal one.
Both candidates should outline their programs and plans that will make life in our city better, and with it the education and welfare of its citizens. It takes brass, and both candidates have expressed their belief they have the courage to handle that vision.
We await their statements, and hope the public will take note.