Search This Blog

Monday, August 5, 2013

Standing still – Letter to the editor of the Record Journal Sunday August 4, 2013

This letter was written by Vincent Avallone of Wallingford and published in the Record Journal on Sunday August 4, 2013 in the Readers’ Opinions section of the paper.

 

Editor: In response to Jim Seichter’s letter (R-J, 7-26), I’m sure Lt. Governor Nancy Wyman would have enjoyed meeting with the mayor if she had only been invited.

It amazes me how the thinking of the local Republican Party is so in sync with the state and national Party in that they’re great at pointing out problems, with no solutions of course, but fail to acknowledge those most responsible for causing the problems in the first place.

Do the names John Rowland, Jodi Rell and George Bush ring a bell? When Mr. Dickinson became mayor in the 80’s, he wasn’t burdened with a financial and economic crisis, electric rates were already low, much lower than they are today, and the bond rating was just fine.

Not quite the same scenario when Governor Malloy and Lt. Governor Wyman took office. It’s unfortunate that Seichter didn’t attend Jason Zandri’s fundraiser and listen to the Democratic Party’s endorsed mayoral candidate’s address to the crowd. He was excited, energetic and full of ideas you’ll learn about as the campaign progresses and he delivered a message of moving Wallingford forward and making it a better place to live, unlike the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” philosophy of the mayor.

The Republicans feel that Wallingford is an oasis and they’ll continue “doing things how they always have been done.” The mayor is so complacent that instead of addressing issues that face the town, he decided to sing a song when he was recently endorsed by his Party. Jason Zandri understands that if Wallingford isn’t moving forward, it’s moving backwards as other towns streak by us utilizing modern methods of achieving greater efficiency at a reduced cost. There’s much work to be done, as Seichter states, but it won’t get done standing still.

Vincent Avallone, Wallingford

WALLINGFORD PROPERTY TAX DEFERRAL FOR THE ELDERLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED – WHY IT DOESN’T GO FAR ENOUGH

There is really little need for me to include much additional narrative into the facts below (but I do offer some); Wallingford needs to review our current offering and then consider some changes in this program to make it a better benefit for Wallingford’s elderly and disabled.

There is no reason we cannot do more. I am good with anyone that wants to move to another state to be closer to family or to spend more time in warmer weather, but to have someone say “I have to move away from family and the town that I grew up in or have called home since [DATE] because I can no longer afford the taxes in Wallingford and Connecticut” is unfathomable.

We all know that the impact is dual (local and state); we need to address what we can locally and then lobby the state on behalf of our citizens as much as we can.



Here is the data for Wallingford:

Wallingford’s median household income in 2009: $71,117 (it was $57,308 in 2000)

Wallingford’s per capita income in 2009: $32,679 (this means “each individual person”)

Estimated median house or condo value in 2009: $295,349 (it was $157,700 in 2000)

Wallingford’s property tax deferral income guidelines for 2010 – Married $49,500 – Single $42,300; in order to reach Wallingford’s household income, this benefit would need to increase 43.5% as it otherwise falls short.

 

Here is the data for Guilford:

Guilford’s median household income in 2009: $95,359 (it was $76,843 in 2000)

Guilford’s per capita income in 2009: $46,803 (this means “each individual person”)

Estimated median house or condo value in 2009: $431,692 (it was $230,500 in 2000)

Guilford’s property tax deferral income guidelines (based on total years of residency) 20+ years – Married $95,000 – Single $79,000; “married” matches their town’s median household income.

 

Here is the data for Durham:

Durham’s median household income in 2009: $93,287 (it was $57,308 in 2000)

Durham’s per capita income in 2009: $40,442 (this means “each individual person”)

Estimated median house or condo value in 2009: $316,714 (it was $157,700 in 2000)

Durham’s property tax deferral income guidelines for 2010 (based on total years of residency) 20+years “Income not to exceed 2.0 times the maximum income levels set annually for single or married status, as applicable, by the Office of Policy and Management for State elderly/disabled tax relief programs” – those numbers (doubled, as outlined for the 2011 program year) are Married $79,000 – Single $64,600. While it does not reach their town’s median household income, it does better than Wallingford.

 

We can do better than this Wallingford for our seniors who have lived here a lot longer than “just” 20 years.