Beware Big Promises from Candidates

In the last newsletter, I wrote, “Something I always think about before elections (big or small) is how odd I think it is that people expect change. The truth is, whether you're a First Selectman or a President, you're bound by laws (usually, anyway...).” I went on to point out some of the ways the town and schools are bound by state laws and regulations that often keep candidates who promise the world from making the changes they claim they will.

I'm the kind of person who annoys everyone else in business meetings because I say things like, "Great idea, but how?" Most people can't answer that question, which typically means it's never going to happen. So, when I hear candidates making big promises I know they can’t keep, I wonder if it’s because the candidates are lying to us or because they just don’t know better. Stafford’s Republican Town Committee’s candidates for First and Second Selectman, Brian Bagley and Tim Cromwell, seem to be bumping up against the exact reality I’m describing. 

In a recent video published to the Republican Town Committee Facebook page, Bagley said, “I’ve looked at things in the town and when you start digging into the weeds, if you will, okay, it’s amazing the details that are behind everything that’s there, okay. Some of the decisions that are made by the town are, realistically, truly out of the hands of the town. It’s being pushed upon them by different entities and different things. And I think we really need to understand more of that.”

Well, if you’d like a deeper understanding of this issue, here’s a short list of claims you should be skeptical about: 

Cutting school spending

If someone tells you they are going to cut school spending, don’t believe them. Schools in Connecticut are bound by a minimum budget requirement: “The Minimum Budget Requirement (MBR) prohibits districts from budgeting less for education than the previous year. There are exceptions where a district can reduce their appropriation such as a decrease in enrollment, a decrease in Education Cost Sharing (ECS) aid, a closure of a school or increased efficiencies which need to be approved by the commissioner of education.”

There is a reason Connecticut’s schools are consistently at the top of the national rankings, and it’s because we don’t just gut the schools when times get tough. There are plenty of places that are perfectly happy to defund their schools and end up with an undereducated population, but Connecticut isn’t one of them. So, if you want to stop seeing your tax money go to your local schools (maybe you’d rather see your tax dollars go to bailing out all those states that don’t pay their own way) consider a state at the bottom of the schools’ list.

Cutting the “fat” in the town budget

First Selectman Bill Morrison often says that when he came into office, the then-interim CFO told him that Stafford doesn’t have a spending problem, it has a revenue problem. You’ll hear the opposite on Facebook, but you decide who to trust: internet strangers or the professional finance experts. 

I don’t know a lot about union negotiations, but I recently had a conversation with someone who does. On both sides of the budget (town and school), salaries and benefits are huge line items. Those, for the most part, are negotiated with unions, and if an agreement can’t be reached, the state steps in to arbitrate. Very rarely is a town going to avoid giving raises. So, what does that mean? The only way to cut those lines is to cut staff, which is already happening in the schools. But guess what; we’re still on the hook for unemployment benefits, so cutting staff isn’t without its costs.

And, as you may remember, the most significant bump in the town budget two years ago went to the paving line. From New City Road to Old Springfield Road, progress is being made. Historically, that budget is the first to go when significant cuts are made. So if you’re pro-road, you may want to think about what’s on the chopping block when a candidate promises you lower taxes. 

Another casualty of budget cuts was the Summer Rec Camp, which had its funding cut under First Selectman Sal Titus and was saved by ARPA funds. The camp kept collecting fees and raising funds through the Polar Bear Paddy Plunge so that when the ARPA funds ran out, it would have a nest egg to keep it going.

Recently, I ran into someone on our comments section who said he thought revaluations are a money grab, and he felt the town should find some other way to go about "it." I don't really know what "it" is, but the state mandates revaluations and they have to be done every five years. So, if a candidate tells you they can do something about this, they can't. The question is whether they are willingly lying to you or don't know how the town functions.

The keyboard warriors would have you believe there's a ton of waste in the town budget, but they never quite fully articulate what that waste is or where they would make cuts. None of this is to say there aren't some ways to trim here and there. But don’t be fooled, cuts have consequences. If you don’t feel the impact, your neighbors will, because there is no more ARPA money to save the day.

A magic bullet for affordable housing

If someone tells you they have the answers to create affordable housing in town, without explaining how they’re going to do it, don’t believe them. In fact, you should be asking them exactly which town and state regulations would need to change to make it easier and how they plan to do it. If they can’t answer that, they don’t have any idea what they are doing.

Here’s the thing: most of the building codes Stafford abides by are set by the state. Do we have some local regulations? Sure, but the big ones (you know, the ones that make sure your house doesn’t fall down or catch on fire) are out of our hands. Whether it’s about proximity to wetlands or egress windows, there are laws every town must abide by.

More often than not, affordable housing doesn’t exist because it doesn’t make business sense for developers, or because of exclusionary zoning practices that make it impossible to build dense housing, thanks to NIMBY attitudes. In fact, “affordable housing” is now being referred to as “workforce housing” because some people can’t seem to get over their own prejudices about what it means to be “affordable.” 

In recent years, there’s been a fight happening at the state level over affordable housing. Some groups are trying to bypass local regulations to ensure more affordable housing is built. However, there is a law already in place that lets developers interested in creating affordable housing bypass local zoning regulations to do so, and it works. 

The 8-30g statute made it possible for the Borough School project to squeeze in 20 units instead of 12. What counts as affordable is a moving target, but at the time the Borough School project got the go-ahead, it was:

• 1 bedroom - $1,159

• 2 bedrooms - $1,296

• 3 bedrooms - $1,699

More recently, 8-30g was used to subdivide a property on the corner of Lake Shore Blvd. and Colburn Rd. So, the reality is, when a property owner or developer is willing to create genuinely affordable housing (at least according to the state income guidelines), they can wave a magic 8-30g wand and make it happen with very few questions asked.

Last year Dave Galotto of Galotto Realty, who is now the Chair of Republican Town Committee, found that out first-hand when he went in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC). Galotto wanted to build a triplex where only a duplex is allowed per zoning regulations, at his 28 High Street property, which he bought for $17,000 in 2023. The PZC told him they could not approve the application based on the town’s regulations, but that the state’s 8-30g statute would allow him to bypass the town’s rules and essentially put whatever residential building he wants there, as long as one-third of the units are affordable. More than a year later, nothing has changed on the property, however, there is a lawsuit between the property owner and Valor Construction, and court documents indicate, "On or about May 6, 2024, the Town of Stafford, Connecticut approved a zoning permit for the Property permitting the rebuilding of a demoed residential dwelling 2 family house."

The state and much of the country have a supply and demand problem in the housing market. That’s great for property owners. You can charge more when selling your house or renting that apartment (unless, of course, you're hemmed in by regulations like 8-30g, telling you how much you can charge for an affordable unit). Stafford has a low supply, and an aging population of people who may have traditionally sold their homes and retired to Florida, letting some nice young family buy their old house and move up the property ladder. Today, people are staying put, making it increasingly difficult for younger people to even get on that property ladder.

“One-third (33.5%) of baby boomers who own their home say they’ll never sell, according to a recent Redfin-commissioned survey. Another 30% say they’ll sell their home at some point, but not within the next decade.

Older people are even less likely to sell, with nearly half (44.6%) of Silent Generation members never planning to sell.”

Solutions to these problems have been talked about at the PZC. Everything from allowing additional dwelling units (ADUs) to shrinking required lot sizes where more communal amenities were provided has been discussed. However, progress is slow, especially when your zoning enforcement officer (ZEO) is part-time, because there is a shortage of people qualified for this position, and towns have to pay a pretty penny to secure a full-time ZEO. 

So, if someone tells you it’s going to be easy to fix the affordability problem, think twice before believing them. 

---

*This text was included when this editorial was originally published, and then later included the update: "More than a year later, nothing has changed on the property, however, the political committee Galotto now leads chose not to re-endorse two of its own sitting members on the PZC. Why would they do that? That's a great question.

Update: Current PZC Chair Dave Palmberg, a Republican who the Democrats endorsed for this election cycle, says he initially was not going to run and then changed his mind. By then, others had stepped up to run on the RTC ticket."