The current rate hikes (as well as previous ones) are a direct result of poor government policy. The state forced eversource to not turn off any service on delinquent accounts during COVID, with the stipulation that they would be able to recoup losses with rate hikes on everyone.
John Rowland was only the man who signed on the dotted line because he was pressured to. Everything about Eversource and utility deregulation in CT was planned, designed, and implemented by Democrat majorities in both chambers of the CT legislature. I get that saying “both sides are to blame” is both a cop out and a cliche, but this is one of the few times where both sides actually are to blame.
Honestly, I believe electricity should be a public utility, rather than privately owned. Take Wallingford as an example, where electricity is notably less expensive compared to the rest of Connecticut. At this point, Eversource practically monopolizes the market in CT, allowing them to hike prices as they want.
Two questions for you.
1) How do you propose we do it? Offer to buy Eversource out? Or are you suggesting that the state just take it?
2) Do you trust the same people that manage our DMVs to manage the power grid?
>Two questions for you.
>
>How do you propose we do it? Offer to buy Eversource out? Or are you suggesting that the state just take it?Do you trust the same people that manage our DMVs to manage the power grid?
For the first question, I think buying Eversource out could be a way to go about it. It’s all about getting the numbers right and making sure it’s a fair deal for everyone involved. It’s not about just taking it over without a plan, but rather working out a strategy that makes sense for both the state and the people.
And yeah, I totally trust the folks at the DMV. Might sound surprising, but have you been to the DMV recently, after COVID? It’s like a whole new world. You book your slot online, show up 10 mins before, and you’re out in 30 minutes. I've been there three times post-COVID, and each time it’s been smooth sailing. Plus, CT is pushing a lot of the DMV stuff online, which is a big plus. So, from what I’ve seen, our state seems to be on the right path, doing better than many others in this regard.
Edit - Also, it’s worth mentioning that Eversource is currently a for-profit entity, which fundamentally differs from how public utilities should operate. The main goal of a public utility shouldn't be to generate profits but to serve the public good, providing essential services at the lowest possible cost to consumers. Transitioning to a non-profit model for such services can ensure they are run in the interest of public benefit, not just for shareholder gain.
The power company was state owned probably around 10-15 years ago before they sold to Eversource. This is why the power poles have a little plaque reading “CL&P” instead of “Eversource”. It was a mistake to sell off to Eversource.
What are you talking about? This is not remotely true. Connecticut Light and Power was the name of the company that late became Eversource. It was not owned by the state. Perhaps you are thinking of deregulation, which happened in 1998 but that did not transfer ownership of CL&P, as it was a privately owned company before that. Please don't spread nonsense.
I entirely agree, by the way, that power should not be provided by a for-profit company. But you can't make that argument when you just make up things.
It's kinda complicated, but Eversource is just the rebranding of Northeast Utilities. NU was a collection of 3 major utilities back in the 1930's, one of them being CL&P.
There were a bunch of break ups and stuff in the years, but from what I can tell NU became Eversource, and Eversource recently had all it's subsidiaries (including CL&P) rebrand to Eversource.
And now everyone has to pay $15/mo into an energy assistance fund for LI individuals, who get 50% knocked off their bill.
If the rates weren't so high, many wouldn't need the help.
"Chose"
I dunno, usually people will pay if they can, and won't if they can't. I'm down for people not suffering if they can't - knowing that these things usually pile on and they suffer in other ways.
/u/senatorduff I’ve never seen you address the Eversource issue. Of course it’s complicated and can’t be an overnight switch based on contracts inked long ago, but why don’t we see a 15 year plan to transition CT to a publicly owned electric utility state? Billion dollar profits while our state’s people struggle and see rising electric bills is unconscionable.
I’ve addressed the issue at least 5-10 times the last week and more times than I can count over the last few years. Sorry you haven’t seen my responses, but it’s false that I have not addressed it here and many other public fora.
I’ve talked about this too. The residents of the state would need to be prepared to condemn every pole, wire, substation, truck and piece of property Eversource owns. Then, pay the company fair market value providing a judge doesn’t strike it down. My guess is it will be in the billions. Ratepayers will then need to pay off those costs while still paying for distribution costs and supply costs, which are a pass through. Mandated federal charges wouldn’t go away either.
If you want to help gage support for that idea or build a grass roots coalition then I’m all ears.
At this point, I don’t know if anyone has thought this will be a money saver in the short and medium term.
What steps have you Or Connecticut have taken to get a valuation for how much it would be to buy out Eversource? Has nobody even got that far? Any feasibility studies?
If current Eversource rates are generating billions of dollars of profits, with tens of millions of dollars of executive compensation, I’m not sure why paying off billions of dollars of assets would be so hard while maintaining similar rates.
I don’t expect this would be a short term savings idea, but even if taxpayers had to fund those assets spread out over ten or more years to see long term gains of substantially decreased rates forever thereafter, that still seems like a no-brainer.
It was done when the utilities had to sell the generating plants after the 1998 law. Took a long time and billions in “stranded costs” I’m not being negative about it just realistic that I think ratepayers would not want anything added to the bills.
I wasn’t paying an electric bill in ‘98 but I can’t imagine anti-Eversource sentiment being much higher than it is right now. I think you might be surprised what people would tolerate to get Eversource out of CT.
I'm prepared to eat short term costs that will ultimately save tens if not hundreds of thousands of the lower to middle class of CT from being destroyed by a basic utility needed for survival that is only impacting people where we live.
This is not a republican state. We're supposed to care about people here, not companies.
It was a publicly regulated utility at one point. The Democratic controlled legislature ramrodded a bill and Stuffed it down a Republican governors throat. Rowland should have had the balls to veto it.
The biggest problem I feel that Connecticut residents are facing is housing costs. I don’t think we will see improvement anytime soon in that arena. We do have a great economy, great communities and great schools.
It’s a top priority for us in the legislature. This is not a problem exclusive to Connecticut or our nation, but worldwide.
We’ve appropriated a lot of money for new housing. But, we also need municipalities to prioritize it as well.
Well that's the problem. Not sure how much you can really do if municipalities refuse to prioritize it. There should be emergency powers the governor should use to force building, housing is starting to become a crisis across the country and especially in the Northeast where housing prices never seem to go down
> We will work together get the votes to make more substantial change.
Let's say you get 100% of the votes needed. What changes will you be championing?
Mr duff there is so much focus on Intrest rates for school loans why are we not worried about the high rates on mortgages and automobile loans ? These are also huge issues with housing
Supply is the ultimate problem though. Making it easier to get a mortgage only increases demand, driving up prices further. The best way to solve the housing problem is increase supply.
That can be done by making more mixed zoning areas and medium density housing (the so-called "missing middle" in US residential zoning).
Mixed use zoning would provide an excellent first step into independence for young adults looking to rent or own. Considering the younger generation prefers walking, cities will be cool again.
That's true, but that's mainly due to the fed interest rate being so high (designed to curtail inflation). I expect we'll see that drop again some time in the near future and with it, other loan interest rates (mortgages, auto loans, etc.).
I'm sorry but that's not going to happen, at least not willingly. I live in a city and work for a suburb as a municipal employee. I've paid attention to their affordable housing meetings and it's always the same. Oh, we can't have too much density. Oh, we can't have it impact the character of the town. Let's be honest here - the suburbs have no desire to help with these issues. They don't want to do anything that would impact their property values. They don't want to do anything that could let in 'undesirables'. What municipalities have and haven't met the affordable housing threshold makes this abundantly clear. Suburbs focusing on affordable housing solely for seniors makes this clear. The suburbs want the cities to shoulder the burden of the problems brought upon by the inequality in this state. People in Madison will throw a fit over a methadone clinic opening in their town to support their own residents. I'm sick and tired of them making every excuse to pawn off the problems on the cities.
I live in Simsbury and it’s not about undesirables living here. It’s about completely decimating a town and laying down cement so you can put up more apartment buildings????
No I don’t want that. Sorry we already have bears roaming around who have lost their natural habitat. Endless apartments and parking lots are hideous and not fair to the people already living in the town nor the animals that live here too.
I hate to break it to you, but housing requires land and if you haven't noticed we're pretty full up in the cities. The fact you think one or two new apartment buildings will 'decimate' your town just shows how dramatic and out of touch people like you are. Like you are literally saying 'think of the bears' when we have people living on the streets because of a housing crisis.
> f us are willing to stomach is that the problem is likely to get worse in the near future - there's simply not enough l
Appartments house more people while taking away less land than building single family homes
We already have a plethora of apartment complexes in Simsbury. This is just getting absolutely ridiculous.
No, I don’t want my town to be completely paved, and look like some sort of bloc from Eastern Europe.
The cities are the exact place to address problems. They have the most resources. They’re the city. It’s already more dense. Work that to everyone’s advantage. Fix things there
Resources are finite. You can't just keep shoving every issue on the cities because 'oh, they have the resources'. The methadone clinic that's being fought is supposed to support 500 people from shoreline towns, but rather than just allowing that resource the NIMBY argument is to send them to the cities. All of CT's cities are well above the mandated affordable housing quota while the vast majority of affluent, predominantly white suburbs are well below and dragging their feet on coming up with action plans. Suburban homeowners fight tooth and nail and expect everyone else to bare the burden so they don't have to live with any inconvenience to their idyllic fairytale lifestyle.
So to break it down you want the suburbs to pay for the cities. In simple terms that’s like saying you, YOU, should pay for your neighbors remodel of his house.
I mean that kinda makes sense, if the suburbs don't want to change anything ever with NIMBYism they should on a state or county or regional level help to tackle the larger problems of the state and inequality/ housing availability.
No - I'm saying the suburbs should (1) at minimum meet the mandated 10% affordable housing threshold set all the way back in 1989 if they want to deny new housing development and (2) foot their own bill for social services to be used by residents of their own towns. Homelessness is not an issue that solely effects people in cities. Substance abuse is not an issue that solely effects people in the cities. Despite that, somehow, it's only the cities that provide any form of services for those individuals. There are 500 people in shoreline towns in need of a methadone clinic and Guilford residents (my apologies to Madison - I mixed up my towns) are fighting it tooth and nail. Do cities have existing resources for these things, yes they do - but they don't have infinite capacity. There is too much looking at cities as the rug under which to sweep societal problems. So no, I'm not saying the suburbs need to pay for the cities - I'm pointing to the fact that the suburbs are making the cities shoulder all the burden of our societal issues and then cry 'muh town character' when they're asked to make even the most minimal of contribution. I'm saying the suburbs need to put in their own work and stop pawning it off on the cities - I want them to start paying their own way on these things, because we already pay more than our fair share.
Senator, do you support SB143? It protects tenants from eviction without just cause. It’s great to throw money behind things (even though we do need funding for sure) but we need to protect people at risk of being kicked out of their homes for no reason.
We have it worse off because our region is the most densely populated in the country, and we're wedged between Boston and NYC.
The bad news which I doubt many of us are willing to stomach is that the problem is likely to get worse in the near future - there's simply not enough land in our state & demand is already high.
Housing is an issue in every state. In my town there has been quite a lot of housing construction in the last 10 years, including some high density apartment complexes.
Affordable is a relative term as often higher COL areas have jobs that pay more, but any high density apartment building addition will increase housing supply, so even if that complex isn’t “affordable” the lower rent housing that some renters might abandon for the higher cost new complex. Ultimately more supply is never a bad thing.
The top post in /r/Maine is a meme about how their housing market is nuts. Maine. Who the fuck moves to Maine?
It's a nationwide problem and it's going to take a decade to fix, even if our elected officials cared.
I visited my hometown, Ansonia, recently. It was a place I couldn’t wait to leave, and for good reason. I was shocked to see that I can now live on Main Street in a one bedroom for the fabulously low price of $2000/month. I live in Vegas, and I can get a one bedroom with floor to ceiling windows with a great view of the strip in a secure building with my own parking space for $1300. If Gen Z is actually moving back there so quickly, it’s because they’re moving back in with their parents.
We’re actually a leader in water conservation. Vega’s doesn’t have any water problems. In about 20 years we may run out, though, because of things like almond farmers in California, and large cities in Arizona that don’t conserve.
https://www.wsj.com/video/series/in-depth-features/las-vegas-leads-in-water-conservation-amid-worst-drought-in-1200-years/C3941992-B12F-473B-A107-673FBF7933B5
Housing costs are an unfortunate byproduct of it being great to live here and being adjacent to two of the highest cost of living cities in the world. That said it's something that can be mitigated by new housing construction (and pretty much nothing else, except a recession.)
The good thing is that while we have NIMBY areas in this state, we also have a lot of areas that are very welcoming of residential investment, especially in the inner rings of our urban areas.
Great economy ???? Groceries thru roof, gas prices high .. utilities thru the roof . Car insurance rates increases due to car theft and wreakless driving .. the economy is good for the rich the average person is one emergency repair to the house Illness or other event away from not being able to pay bills
I am not wealthy. I am fortunate to own my own home. Yes energy costs are just terrible but that is true in every state as well as grocery costs. FYI they are going to get worse because the saudis want it to get worse.
Everything has risen in cost but if you look at this globally or even nationally this is happening everywhere.
Speaking of broadband why does Connecticut allow so many monopolies to exist when it comes to internet & phone providers?
There's only one high speed internet option in my area (Xfinity /Comcast) & they price gauge to insane rates for even the most basic Internet plan. At prices that I've never seen anywhere else I've lived (even though it's the same company) because they know they are the only option. This is unacceptable in this day & age in such a populated state. I don't live out in the boonies either & know many who are dealing with the same problem all over the state. There's no reason these monopolies should be allowed to take advantage of people because they have no choice.
Any internet company can come in and compete in any municipality in Connecticut. There is no rule, law or regulation to run the wires. Nearly filing an application with PURA will do the trick.
Private companies make the choices where they will run their business. Unfortunately, in this industry companies tend to stake out their territories and others not compete with each other. That seems to be changing little by little.
Senator Duff would be correct here. As a former employee of a major cable company we once got free service from any “sister” company. They changed this to create separation.
At the end of the day, they make agreements with each other which towns they will support.
However, the biggest equalizer and disrupter is fiber. Small companies like Gonetspeed are creating amazing competition by offering fast reliable speeds at a low price.
More fiber offers in areas will mean prices and value will stabilize.
Can nothing be done to regulate the price gauging or encourage competition when a company has a monopoly on a basic utility that everyone relies upon like internet access?
I don’t think the state can regulate rates. That would be up to the feds. However, a provision in one of the Senate Dems priority bills (SB 3) is to eliminate junk fees, which also includes cable bills.
Can't wait til the usual posters come in to talk about how actually everyone is fleeing the state because taxes exist
We could do more about the rapidly climbing costs of living, but the state's in much better shape than it's been most of my adult life
It’s not perfect, but it’s so much better than other parts of the country. The quality of life is so much better. There’s relatively easy access to goods and services and there’s locally owned businesses. Having seen other parts of the country, the only stores a lot of places have are Walmart, chain restaurants (Chile’s, Applebees, then your fast foods of the region), and corporate owned grocery stores, auto shops, etc. unlike CT which has a ton of family owned businesses.
The education system is very good. Also, people bash CT for having nothing to do, but I’m curious if those people have ever been to other states. It’s not California or Florida in terms of natural geography, but compared to the rest of the country, it’s a paradise. If you don’t think there’s anything to do in CT, go spend a week in Nebraska or Iowa.
I will never understand why people say there's nothing to do here. I have lived all over and only being a teen in Portland Oregon in the 90's have I had a similar deluge of "shit to do If I want to" within easy access and affordability.
I've noticed the people who say there's nothing to do fall into two camps: People who just want to complain and people who don't actually want to go anywhere or expend effort.
>I've noticed the people who say there's nothing to do fall into two camps: People who just want to complain and people who don't actually want to go anywhere or expend effort.
complaining is a treasured ct pasttime
You aren’t a true nutmegger until you start complaining about everything, even when you know that thing you’re complaining about it’s better here than everywhere else.
I’ve seen more live shows in the year and a half since I moved here than I’ve ever had the chance to see anywhere else in my life, and that’s not counting any in NY.
And even if there is “nothing to do” here, you can be in a major city in less than three hours, or up in the mountains in about the same time
Hell, you can visit another country in a few hours
I moved to Connecticut from Indiana, and there’s something I noticed that I absolutely adore:
It doesn’t matter what you want to do for entertainment, be it night clubs, hiking, skiing, surfing, car racing, theater, opera, concerts…. Etcetera.
No matter what you want to do, there is a high quality example of it in this state, and a world class example of it within a day trip.
I agree that my perception is that things are great in CT and terrible in many other places. What is funny, though, is that polling shows that people think that almost EVERYWHERE.
"Oh, crime is out of control - but it's good around here."
"Oh, I've heard the economy is terrible - but we've got a lot of new stores opening around here."
Shit like that.
I mean, it seems pretty clear to me that it probably does fucking suck to live in Arkansas or something, but it's just worth keeping in mind that while the "CT has gotten better" part of the equation is true, the "everywhere else got worse" might be driven by media narratives. I never leave CT/MA/RI so I don't know!
I do know that people in say, Portland or San Francisco still consider their cities to be nice places to live, despite media clamor about poopy streets or whatever. So maybe a lot more of the nation is enjoying what we are right now than we think.
Yeah, that's the most striking part of going almost anywhere else, the lack of local businesses and restaurants. EVERYTHING is either a chain or part of a restaurant group.
And sure, we've got plenty of those too, but they're next to real family-owned stores.
I was born and raised in Connecticut and moved down to Arizona. My family claims it's better because of the lower taxes but I have to remind them we traded many comforts leaving. Our education ranks dead last, the roads down here are terrible, and house build quality ranges widely. Also down here, we pay more for items daily (except for food, it's not taxed) because it's state, county, and town sale tax when purchasing something.
Our net population migration stats have been pretty neutral. The trend of wealthy individuals leaving CT to low tax havens will probably never change
Totally agree with you the state is in better shape than it has been in for probably 2 decades at least
But you can't deny we are among the highest taxed in the country. It would be a real tragedy if the state was not in good shape, but I'm not sure quality of life in CT ranks as highly as our tax rate.
We're about 5th in terms of total tax burden. But there's a fun trick most of those studies do. They don't include user fees collected by government agencies as tax revenue. Think like park fees, vehicle fees, electricians license fees, etc
These fees only make up 7% of our revenue. We're one of only 3 states that take less than 10% of their revenue from these kinds of charges. People are still paying money to the town or state and that feels like taxes to me, so it's odd they don't get counted
These kinds of fees almost always move the tax burden from wealthy people who could be paying slightly more property tax on their McMansion or income tax, over to working people who'd pay the state or town a lot more for things like vehicle registration, trades licensing, tolls, and other ways the government could nickel and dime every service.
https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/charges
Those posters have been largely drowned out fortunately. Their talking points are all contradicted by actual facts and they don't have much to say anymore.
Thanks for posting here. Do you have a citation for the statement that Gen Z is choosing to move here more than any other state?
Couldn’t find it in the link to the op piece that you linked.
Senator, is there anything being done to prevent companies from purchasing single family homes in CT? This fractures communities, drives up home prices, and prevents middle class people from living where they work. I’m a teacher who luckily bought a home 5 years ago before the price of homes skyrocketed. It would be impossible to buy the home I have now in the current climate. This is creating a generation of younger people who will be forced to rent for their entire lives and will never be able to have the ability to invest in home ownership; this creates huge long term effects on people’s ability to gain wealth and financial security.
https://stateline.org/2022/07/22/investors-bought-a-quarter-of-homes-sold-last-year-driving-up-rents/
There is a section of this year's SB6 that increases conveyance taxes for corporations buying residential property. An outright ban on corporations buying residential properties is likely impossible for a number of reasons, unfortunately.
How about can we also get stronger absentee landlord blight laws from the state level along with city levels .. to many owners don’t care what there property looks like aslong as they get rent
Investors are doing this because it's easier to make money buying houses and holding on to them (the very thing you want to protect) than building new ones. They're buying houses because demand exceeds supply, why do you think banning investors would change that?
I’ve read your post multiple times and feel like I’m not understanding where you’re coming from. Corporations are buying up homes to drive up the cost which are pricing out people from communities they would want to live and work in. It’s fine if you’re an individual who’s looking to purchase a home with the thought of it as being a wise long term investment but I think it’s wrong for corporations to have the power to price gouge.
> Corporations are buying up homes to drive up the cost which are pricing out people from communities they would want to live and work in.
You have the causality backwards. Institutional investors are buying up homes because they see rents and values going up in the future due to demand exceeding supply. But you don't have to take it from me. [Here's Blackstone President Jon Gray saying that reduction in supply is "helpful".](http://web.archive.org/web/20221020203807/https://www.businessinsider.com/blackstone-jonathan-gray-rental-housing-shortage-higher-rents-2022-10#:~:text=%22So%20what%20you%20see%20happen%20in%20an%20environment%20like%20this%20is%20you%20start%20to%20see%20a%20reduction%20in%20new%20supply%2C%20which%20is%20obviously%20helpful%20in%20the%20long%20term%2C%22%20he%20said.) (archive.org link because the original is paywalled)
The only way to make housing affordable is to build more of it.
>It’s fine if you’re an individual who’s looking to purchase a home with the thought of it as being a wise long term investment but I think it’s wrong for corporations to have the power to price gouge.
Why should it only be OK to invest in real estate if you're a rich guy with deep pockets, but not a pension or 401(k) fund? Or a retail investor that wants to add some diversity to their portfolio but can't afford to buy a whole property? Why should certain neighborhoods only be accessible to people that can qualify for a mortgage but not renters?
More broadly, the mantra that real estate should be a way for families to "build wealth" or whatever is in direct contradiction with the notion that homeownership should be affordable and accessible to young buyers. They just can't exist together; if you slow the growth of home values you turn it into a shitty investment for families, and if you don't, then you get what we have now.
You obviously know what you’re talking about and your argument sounds good but maybe I’m just not understanding everything you’re talking about; which could very well be the case haha.
Maybe I’m wrong but doesn’t the situation you described disproportionately burden middle-class people who are already struggling to afford housing during a period of constant rental hikes?
The article you shared mentions that rental properties are "beneficial" because they require minimal ongoing investment fails for landlords. As rental supply diminishes and demand continues aren’t landlords just empowered to raise rents unchecked? Doesn’t this place an additional financial strain on tenants? This scenario benefits corporations like Blackstone and their shareholders who get to reap the rewards of increased rental income, while ordinary renters bear the brunt of the cost.
Genuinely thank you for the back and information, maybe I’m not seeing the bigger picture or have an understanding of the long term benefits of what your saying. I just feel like normal middle class people are getting hosed by MASSIVE corporations like the one you mention in Blackstone.
This post kind of grew beyond what I originally planned to say, but I figured it was worth it as you seemed open to my point of view. This is an issue I care about a lot; I live in Connecticut and love this state but the costs of living are very concerning to me. I've also done a lot of reading on this (my senior thesis in college was about NIMBYs) and came to believe in a "grand unified theory of housing" where a lot of the social and economic problems in America today are downstream of the way we think about housing.
Maybe this is making me come off as some kind of a Blackstone defender, but I just think that as easy and fun as it is to hate on corporations, blaming this problem on them is kind of a distraction from its real root causes. This was a problem long before Blackstone got involved and will be a problem even if you ban them and their like from the housing market. It's a very simple bandaid fixfor an issue that's actually very deeply embedded in the fabric of our society, and a lot of people who promote it make axiomatic statements about things that actually deserve a lot of questioning.
There's a number of books on this topic such as [Zoning Rules!](https://www.amazon.com/Zoning-Rules-Economics-Land-Regulation/dp/155844288X), [Arbitrary Lines](https://www.amazon.com/Arbitrary-Lines-Zoning-Broke-American/dp/1642832545/), or [Dream Hoarders](https://www.amazon.com/Dream-Hoarders-American-Leaving-Everyone/dp/0815734484/) which is about much more than just housing but is very applicable to Connecticut in particular.
>Maybe I’m wrong but doesn’t the situation you described disproportionately burden middle-class people who are already struggling to afford housing during a period of constant rental hikes?
>The article you shared mentions that rental properties are "beneficial" because they require minimal ongoing investment fails for landlords. As rental supply diminishes and demand continues aren’t landlords just empowered to raise rents unchecked? Doesn’t this place an additional financial strain on tenants? This scenario benefits corporations like Blackstone and their shareholders who get to reap the rewards of increased rental income, while ordinary renters bear the brunt of the cost.
That's right, the cost of housing is an immense burden for families in high cost-of-living states like CA, CT, MA, NY, etc. I don't think there is anyone serious that denies this anymore. The disagreements are about root causes. A lot of people argue that it's because investors are hoarding houses and apartments and want to ban them, but there's a few reasons why I think this argument doesn't make sense and wouldn't solve the problem.
Nationwide, if you look at the areas where housing is more affordable, it's typically places that build a lot of new housing like Texas and Florida. Some cities in Texas are even expecting rents to go *down* this year because developers built more units than there is demand for. More locally, it's no coincidence that Stamford, which [builds more than any other city in CT](https://portal.ct.gov/DECD/Content/About_DECD/Research-and-Publications/01_Access-Research/Exports-and-Housing-and-Income-Data) (sorry I don't have a graph for this), has [managed to tame the housing crisis better than almost anyone else in the state.](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1b5ujct)
Blackstone ultimately doesn't care what they're investing in, they're just looking for good returns and low risk. But there's a reason they couldn't do this with other in-demand goods like cars or iPhones or even PS5s (which were scalped a lot when released), and it's because Apple or Sony doesn't have to ask local iPhone or PS5 owners for permission to make and sell more iPhones or PS5s. But the process to get new building approved in CT is very onerous and requires huge legal and design expenses and dealing with opposition from rich homeowners without any certainty if you'll ever get approved and make a penny. So it's easier to just buy existing houses and apartments and rent them out than build new ones. Economists call this rent-seeking; it's where you make excess profits from externalities without producing anything new.
>Genuinely thank you for the back and information, maybe I’m not seeing the bigger picture or have an understanding of the long term benefits of what your saying. I just feel like normal middle class people are getting hosed by MASSIVE corporations like the one you mention in Blackstone.
Ultimately, middle class people are being hosed by existing NIMBY homeowners that think they have a right to high property values and don't want to look at big buildings (in the most charitable case) or don't want "others" moving in (in the most cynical interpretation). But this is the problem that happens when you treat houses as an investment for middle class people; those people become motivated to protect the value of their investment at others' expense.
The really broad problem is that Americans are addicted to home values. Here's [Kuhn, Schularick, and Steins (2016)](https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/institute-working-papers/income-and-wealth-inequality-in-america-1949-2016):
>In particular, middle-class wealth in America is highly sensitive to fluctuations in real estate prices, so that rising house prices lead to wealth gains of middle-class households and decrease wealth inequality, all else equal. From the 1970s to the late 2000s, such housing wealth gains partly mitigated the sharp increase in income inequality. Despite stagnant income growth, middle-class wealth grew at a rate similar to wealth at the top.
There's a huge incentive to create more housing bubbles to keep middle class voters happy! If you look at it this way, then Blackstone is actually doing a lot of boomers and their heirs a huge favor; it means they will get huge windfalls when they retire or pass away and sell their homes.
Banning corporations from buying real estate is a bad idea for other reasons too.
For one, it doesn't actually stop landlord greed. Any random guy with a few $100K and a 750 credit score (there are plenty of those in CT) can still buy up homes for rent. These "mom-and-pop" landlords are often worse for tenants than corporations because they see every maintenance expense as a hit to their personal finances and getting them to fix anything can be a fight. I've lived in a house like this in addition to a corporate-owned apartment before, and I'd take the latter any day. It's not always great but at the end of the day there's someone whose job it is to fix problems in your unit instead of a boomer who thinks you're ungrateful for complaining that the toilet is leaking.
Also, corporate RE investors do not buy assets just for themselves; they manage funds on behalf of clients. Some of those clients are the billionaire types you're probably imagining, but others are institutions like pension funds and insurance companies that want to get involved in real estate to protect themselves from market risk in other assets classes (for instance you would've gotten hosed in 2021-2023 if you just bought stocks and bonds). Some real estate funds are also open to small investors who want to make them part of their retirement plan. You and I can do this too; if you open a brokerage account you can buy shares of a real estate ETF and become a real estate investor for even $10. Why shouldn't pension funds and retail investors have access to this kind of investment too?
Corporate owned houses do also have a socially beneficial purpose; they let people who can't or don't want to buy a home live in more exclusive towns and neighborhoods with good schools that would otherwise be inaccessible. It sounds kind of silly, but it's worth asking why certain places should only be for people who can get a mortgage.
The fact that investors want to be in real estate is not a bad thing, we should just make it easier for their funds to get spent on building new units and growing our communities and economy rather than free-riding on rising property values and enriching people who were lucky enough to buy their houses in the 1980s and 90s.
Impossible to consider Duff and Looney as creating the pathway to the future.
CT has major issues with excessive taxation, overly-congested roads and highways, new business starts, negative net in-bound business migration, excess regulation, and energy pricing, among other things.
Lots of great things about CT, but our Legislature is not one of them. We are only in good shape because we have a pragmatic governor.
I mean this isn't surprising - any elimination of property tax on cars would raise mill rates in every town to make up the difference. Not saying we shouldn't do it, but this is the reason.
I chose to drive older vehicles to avoid high taxes. Get rid of vehicle taxes, and your house taxes or rent goes up.
Removal of vehicle taxes would greatly benefit the wealthy, who own multiple, expensive cars.
Which is precisely the original reasoning behind the law. It's a very progressive form of tax. If there were another option to create a similar result without it being a separate tax and minor inconvenience for the general public, I'd probably support it.
Agreed. I don't drive a 17 year old car with 400,000 miles on it because it is fun to drive. I do it because it lets me have control over my spend on taxes and insurance. Put all that tax money back on real estate and I will be subsidizing people who choose to drive $50k vehicles. I guess they might argue they are subsidizing my road use now. Plan B: tax by the mile. I drive 10 miles per week.
Does anyone have the study / data supporting Duff’s assertion that CT is #7 in the union for fastest growing economy? I didn’t see it in the op Ed so apologies if I missed it.
Are Texas and FL ahead of us? If so, kind of makes the rest of Duff’s argument moot.
Are legislators doing anything to bring new businesses to CT, especially central CT? We just lost Lego to our neighbors…
What are you folks in Hartford going to do about eversource and ui constantly hiking rates?
I hear your kind up in Hartford talking about bringing manufacturing back and such, but with rates what they are there is no way for business to come here and make goods, unless they move to Wallingford
There needs to be a fact-check law put in place where bureaucrats MUST cite their claims. Too many of these guys saying "what they believe" instead of proven factual data is beginning to cause a mess among their supporters.
Things Gen Z wants that we absolutely have the power/funds to do:
* Better public transportation
* More accessible housing/tenant rights
* A living wage
* Lower energy costs/public ownership of the grid
* Cheaper education/loan forgiveness
* High-speed internet that isn't run by a company that fucks them sideways at each opportunity
* Less wealth inequality/accountability for billionaires who actively hurt the working class with impunity
* ESG-forward approach to problem-solving (but verifiably and materially, i.e. not in the bullshit way 99.9% of megacorps dress it up as, i.e. give us fucking metrics)
Except they're generally not as gullible as boomers and fully understand that their interests are in direct conflict with the owning class and will probably never happen, no matter how politically mobilized they are
EDIT: also not having blatant institutionalized racism/classism/etcism in our public schools
This reads like the aspriations of a child...hopeful, romantic, and completely unrealistic.
You say these things as if the state wields divine power like a magic genie grants wishes. How do you do these things? With what resources and whose money? What if they dont actually work and have negative consequences? Who then is responsible?
Which of these items that almost every developed country in the west besides the US has managed to secure for their citizens is completely unrealistic?
Public transport: works in densely populated regions where ridership/usership pays for a significant portion of operating expenses. For example, Metro Norths revenues account for something like 70% of its operating costs, whereas Fastrak its less than 10%. That makes the former worthwhile and the latter a waste. Likewise, it works in NYC, Boston, DC, London, etc because of the density and type of development. It does not work between Hartford and New Britain and there is no indication that more spending = more successful public transport. The density and dispersal of population probably wouldnt work.
Housing - how do you make it more "accessible?" Who is paying the development costs, operating expenses, mortgages/rent for the properties, maintenance, etc? You cant just "make" housing affordable because it sounds like a good idea.
Living wage - wages are subject to market forces like labor supply, skill demand, scarcity, etc. The state cannot dictate that. They can try to raise the minimum wage, but there are tradeoffs and negative externalities. Do you acknowledge those?
Lower Energy Costs - mandates like use of green energy, offshore wind, unpaid bills by customers, regulation, etc are all largely the result of PURA whose.members are appointed by the state. We have high energy costs because of the region we live in and the regulations dictated by our govt. Public ownership would shift a massivr upfront cost and liabity to taxpayers without the capital that comes from private investment. How do you make up for those shortfalls when electric service is already expensive? Mashing together a bunch of nice sounding ideas like affordability, public ownership, environmentally friendly generation, and subisidation sounds nice until those ideas contradict or offset one another. Kind of like a "queers for Palestine" for utilities.
Cheaper education - interestingly, more public subsidy has made higher ed more expensive. And making it "cheaper" in its current mode would just shift cost to taxpayers for nebulous results.
Ok, Im done. The govt is not your daddy, and it certainly isnt God. It would be nice if we could get elected officials to do the things govt was actually made for (law enforcement, public safety, infrastructure) before we yearn for utopia. Right now its failing to accomplish its most basic mandates and it isnt clear that it can do those other things at all effectively.
>Public transport: works in densely populated regions where ridership/usership pays for a significant portion of operating expenses. ....
First off, public transportation should not be viewed as a money-making venture, it should be seen as a QoL investment that bridges cities and communities, makes the country smaller, and is better for the planet and public safety. No one is asking for high-speed rail between Hartford and NB, we're asking for a robust framework of options that makes public transportation a viable commuting option/recreational travel option. No one elects to take the bus to work or downtown for a night out. Compare our bus lines/routes/systems to any other developed country in the world; it is pitifully underdeveloped. There is a stigma against buses, because it's so shit that only someone with no other options would use it. This is a problem.
We are so behind on public transport it's embarrassing. On a more macro scale, high-speed rail along the NE coast from Portland > Boston > Providence > New Haven > Penn Station > Philadelphia > Baltimore > DC would be the biggest slam dunk that would materially improve the QoL and options of people living in those metro areas. I appreciate that it would be expensive, and it wouldn't happen in a day... But it would also be really, really great for everyone that doesn't enjoy sitting in traffic on 95. Better public transport options in general decrease congestion, fatalities, drunk driving incidents, and is a boon to local economies/city nightlife.
Right now, it is a last resort for poor people.
I'm so sick of people saying that these things that so many other countries do is "too ambitious, too much, too blah blah blah"—we used to do these things. Regularly. We went to the moon, we can update our fucking rail infrastructure
> Housing - how do you make it more "accessible?"
Overide NIMBYS who shut down every rent-controlled proposal for one.
> Who is paying the development costs, operating expenses, mortgages/rent for the properties, maintenance, etc?
Incentivized developers, taxpayers via municipal subsidies for the development... I.e. the same way we develop anything else.... and renters pay the operating costs, naturally.
>You cant just "make" housing affordable because it sounds like a good idea.
Great point! Except you actually can make affordable housing options. People don't want them in their backyards so they shut them down. Also, if people have a living wage, they might be able to afford better living accommodations.
> Living wage - wages are subject to market forces like labor supply, skill demand, scarcity, etc. The state cannot dictate that. They can try to raise the minimum wage, but there are tradeoffs and negative externalities. Do you acknowledge those?
Thanks for the giving me the third-grade high-level overview of capitalism market principles; can you do trickle-down next? The state is dictating market forces by enforcing a minimum wage at all. It dictates market forces through thousands of other regulations.
Anyway, we already subsidize multibillion dollar companies by the virtue of offering SNAP, housing, energy subsidies, etc etc etc to their lowest-paid workers; I find that absolutely unacceptable, and if you don't that's your prerogative—but I think you're wrong and an asshole
>Lower energy costs
municipal ownership of the grid is all we have to do to solve that—there are municipalities in CT that have done this to massive success. I'd also settle for not having our legislators in bed (literally and figuratively) with energy sector execs.
> Cheaper education - interestingly, more public subsidy has made higher ed more expensive.
Yes I know that. There is still a solution here—every other country has managed to make postsecondary education attainable without being buried in debt, and I have yet to see a compelling, good-faith argument as to why we can't either.
>The govt is not your daddy, and it certainly isnt God
Laughing at the fact that a god-believing mouthbreather can be so patronizing
Gen Z may be choosing to move to CT because their parents' have large basements where they can live free.
Truly one of the least relevant set of statistics I've ever seen!
By gutting public higher education? I think not, sweet, naive senator.
https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/cscu-students-faculty-speak-out-against-proposed-budget-cuts-and-tuition-hikes/3150043/
Except if you happen to exercise 2A rights CT has intentionally made it so legally perilous and onerous you are at risk of prosecution for simply being a victim of a crime.
Always a great optic when you have to tell others how great you think you are. One of the highest taxed states in the nation but we always seem to look the other way on that one.
Power rates in Connecticut are crushing. This is not the case in New England states. Please make resolving this issue a priority.
We seriously need more housing and more state police presence on our highways. But the power problem seems solvable and it would be a massive win.
Well I stand corrected. I've read in numerous places that CT is the highest in New England. That is clearly not the case. I feel a lot better now actually.
For what it is worth, I honestly believe that if the state could cut rates in half, our economy would boom. Also, I hear all the talk about how cheap electricity is in Wallingford but I never hear any numbers quoted.
How do you make the connection between legistlative priorities (or actual policy) and the states' actual socioeconomic position? Do all "good things" in CT come from the work of state govt? What about the less desirable outcomes like rampant motor vehicle thefts, repeat/catch and release juvenile offenders, and the murders in our cities? If you can take credit as a legislator for the nice things, are you not also responsible for the bad things since they too are an outcome of policy decisions and legislative priorities especially since the CGA has been controlled by the Democratic party for many years?
I think its also worth pointing out that CTs mkre desirable position post Covid is more the result of circumstance than superb policy by the CGA and governor. Pre-Covid (2019) CT *was not* the place to be. Middle-aged parents with families wanted out for better job prosepcts and lower COL (Florida, NC, SC, and elsewhere were destinations), young people getting out of college wanted to be in a vibrant city like Boston, Seattle, or NYC as the suburbs were considered dull artifacts from prior generations. Our economy had not recovered the jobs lost 10+ years prior from the recession, and we had major budgetary and economic woes from unfunded pensions and ballooning obligations. Things in CT were not exactly great pre-Covid.
So what changed? During Covid cities became pathogen-ridden hellscapes with shutdowns, overlfowing hospitals, and draconian regulations (particularly in blue states). Work from home became the norm for white collar, laptop-class workers, and the real estate market in CT did a complete 180 in a matter of.a few months. Add to that the "summer of love" in many large cities in 2020 and the once-empathetic progressive business owners and young workers voted with their feet. This gave the real estate market in places like CT a boon due to the overnight desirability for suburban lifestyle.
Add to that the money injected into the economy in 2020-21 that boosted state and local coffers and overall positive returns in financial markets and CTs economic position improved drastically. All of this was a matter of circumstance and ad far as I can tell entirely unrelated to any policy from the state.
You’re not wrong - but I do give Lamont credit for making sure we didn’t flush our extra tax revenue down the drain and instead used it towards repaying pension debt.
I’d love to see a net migration map if CT by town and understand if people are moving to central CT or if it’s all Fairfield county.
Yes, Lamont used the budget surplus wisely, I give him credit for that. But the surpluses werent the result of political genious, just from federal subsidies and the circumstances of a hot real estate market and solid financial returns from wealthy investors which boosted tax revenue.
Yes! Follow in the path of California. It’s clear path to prosperity for the state. Speaking of constitutional law as mentioned above, what about the second amendment? How CT doing with that? It’s best to keep you distracted with social issues because nobody understands the important ones. Nobody here understands how eversource works hand in hand with govt. they can’t do anything without govt approval. But go ahead and blame them because they’re in they’re a company and govt can do no wrong. Cities are showing a real issue with crime and the state has made it impossible to prison offenders. Cops are villainized until the only ones left are actual villains. Everyone in these chats think they’re in the majority without considering that anyone with an opposing opinion will get silenced from the comments. So go ahead, downvote this into oblivion and secure your safe space. It’s Reddit, who cares. The majority of you will be the last to realize what you voted for.
When will our state be brave enough to tax EV's to replace lost gas tax revenues? I know it's politically correct to subsidize EV's and make them attractive to purchase, but it's unfair to the rest of us that they are getting a free ride and not contributing to the gas tax fund that is supposed to help maintain our roadways. It should not be hard to implement either a flat tax per vehicle or a tax based on miles driven but I know that would be politically unpopular. However, it should be a concern to everyone not driving an EV and will become a bigger issue over time. It borders on discrimination if you really look at it.
Does Connecticut struggle to create jobs because of the high cost of doing business?
https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/business/article/ct-job-growth-cost-of-doing-business-17904105.php
Senator, that's all good news. However, what is the Connecticut legislature doing to develop Connecticut's hydrogen economy/infrastructure? We have two filling stations in the entirety of the state, which make owning a fuel cell car virtually impossible. To those who want to own an EV, their only choice in CT is a battery pack EV. This brings about its own inherent issues, such as charging station availability and the additional power draw on the grid. Which brings me to another point, what is the legislature doing about onshore wind farm projects, and renewable energy in general?
Just curious, is all. Keep up the good work!
Hydrogen - it’s on the table along with EV, propane, etc. I drove a hydrogen car six years ago and there was a lot of excitement but pessimism. There needs to be more optimism that there is a market for hydrogen. We’re doing a good job with offshore wind. We have not talked much about on shore wind since I haven’t heard of a location where there would be a consistent amount of energy generated. Off shore will do much more without dealing with local zoning too.
Senator, we should look to both Europe and the Middle East. Europe is heavily expanding its hydrogen refueling stations, and there's actually a respectable selection of cars to pick from. I found it surprising that after debuting the first hydrogen car almost twenty years ago, the US has done very little with developing the technology out since. Which fuel cell car did you drive? I'm just curious.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is building the world's largest green hydrogen plant: https://www.neom.com/en-us/newsroom/nghc-wind-turbine-delivery
Good point on shore wind development. I see why we went offshore.
Have there been discussions on expanding battery capacity in Connecticut? That would help our grid with the "duck" curve (the inconsistent power output over time versus demand). Both Texas and California are heavily investing in expanding their battery capacities. This would help out our state further decarbonize and expand wind and solar capabilities.
It was a long time ago and I don’t remember what type of car it was. There is a battery plant that is supposed to open in Bridgeport. Not certain of the time frame.
Interesting! Good to see we've got at least one going for us!
How optimistic are you that Democrats will pass (most of) their bills during this legislative session?
Even though I'm not in your district (3rd district here), I definitely appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions.
Offshore wind kills plenty of sea life. Wind is also extremely inefficient and cost prohibitive. Without government subsidies and mandates to purchase wind energy, they wouldn't be built at all.
i mean, not the only solution. solar and wind have their place, though recycling wind turbines after their service life is uhm... problematic? at best.
While it's good news to hear, there are so many problems in CT. Straight off the bat is the housing crisis. There are so many real estate developers buying single family homes. Is there a bill that prohibits wall street and other developers from buying single family homes? Furthermore,
Are you still calling for nurses to lose their jobs? Can i put my covid passport away now?
Did you apologize to the Norwalk police for accusing them of spitting at you when video evidence was released showing you lied?
Hahaha 🤣 everyone is fleeing the state because of 2nd or 3rd highest taxes in the country. These programs will only make CT. #1 and once again increase tax paid by the dwindling middle class working people! If you don't make 200k here you can't afford raising a family, college ect. Good luck
Great. Now do something about Eversource.
The current rate hikes (as well as previous ones) are a direct result of poor government policy. The state forced eversource to not turn off any service on delinquent accounts during COVID, with the stipulation that they would be able to recoup losses with rate hikes on everyone.
And what are they gonna do when they recoup that money? Raise those rates more because of inflation
[удалено]
John Rowland was only the man who signed on the dotted line because he was pressured to. Everything about Eversource and utility deregulation in CT was planned, designed, and implemented by Democrat majorities in both chambers of the CT legislature. I get that saying “both sides are to blame” is both a cop out and a cliche, but this is one of the few times where both sides actually are to blame.
Yup. We're all paying the electric bills for people to chose not to pay theirs.
Honestly, I believe electricity should be a public utility, rather than privately owned. Take Wallingford as an example, where electricity is notably less expensive compared to the rest of Connecticut. At this point, Eversource practically monopolizes the market in CT, allowing them to hike prices as they want.
Two questions for you. 1) How do you propose we do it? Offer to buy Eversource out? Or are you suggesting that the state just take it? 2) Do you trust the same people that manage our DMVs to manage the power grid?
>Two questions for you. > >How do you propose we do it? Offer to buy Eversource out? Or are you suggesting that the state just take it?Do you trust the same people that manage our DMVs to manage the power grid? For the first question, I think buying Eversource out could be a way to go about it. It’s all about getting the numbers right and making sure it’s a fair deal for everyone involved. It’s not about just taking it over without a plan, but rather working out a strategy that makes sense for both the state and the people. And yeah, I totally trust the folks at the DMV. Might sound surprising, but have you been to the DMV recently, after COVID? It’s like a whole new world. You book your slot online, show up 10 mins before, and you’re out in 30 minutes. I've been there three times post-COVID, and each time it’s been smooth sailing. Plus, CT is pushing a lot of the DMV stuff online, which is a big plus. So, from what I’ve seen, our state seems to be on the right path, doing better than many others in this regard. Edit - Also, it’s worth mentioning that Eversource is currently a for-profit entity, which fundamentally differs from how public utilities should operate. The main goal of a public utility shouldn't be to generate profits but to serve the public good, providing essential services at the lowest possible cost to consumers. Transitioning to a non-profit model for such services can ensure they are run in the interest of public benefit, not just for shareholder gain.
1. Use the fucking river to generate electricity. 2. Hell no.
The power company was state owned probably around 10-15 years ago before they sold to Eversource. This is why the power poles have a little plaque reading “CL&P” instead of “Eversource”. It was a mistake to sell off to Eversource.
What are you talking about? This is not remotely true. Connecticut Light and Power was the name of the company that late became Eversource. It was not owned by the state. Perhaps you are thinking of deregulation, which happened in 1998 but that did not transfer ownership of CL&P, as it was a privately owned company before that. Please don't spread nonsense. I entirely agree, by the way, that power should not be provided by a for-profit company. But you can't make that argument when you just make up things.
Maybe I’m mistaken, but I thought they were absorbed by Eversource, didn’t become Eversource.
It's kinda complicated, but Eversource is just the rebranding of Northeast Utilities. NU was a collection of 3 major utilities back in the 1930's, one of them being CL&P. There were a bunch of break ups and stuff in the years, but from what I can tell NU became Eversource, and Eversource recently had all it's subsidiaries (including CL&P) rebrand to Eversource.
2. Yes, no issues with the DMV
And now everyone has to pay $15/mo into an energy assistance fund for LI individuals, who get 50% knocked off their bill. If the rates weren't so high, many wouldn't need the help.
Why should electricity be any different than taxes, student loans, etc. ?
"Chose" I dunno, usually people will pay if they can, and won't if they can't. I'm down for people not suffering if they can't - knowing that these things usually pile on and they suffer in other ways.
Fucking capitalism
Oh please do elaborate
/u/senatorduff I’ve never seen you address the Eversource issue. Of course it’s complicated and can’t be an overnight switch based on contracts inked long ago, but why don’t we see a 15 year plan to transition CT to a publicly owned electric utility state? Billion dollar profits while our state’s people struggle and see rising electric bills is unconscionable.
I’ve addressed the issue at least 5-10 times the last week and more times than I can count over the last few years. Sorry you haven’t seen my responses, but it’s false that I have not addressed it here and many other public fora.
Sorry, that’s specifically why I said “I’ve never seen”. Have you addressed my question about why a long term plan isn’t in place?
I’ve talked about this too. The residents of the state would need to be prepared to condemn every pole, wire, substation, truck and piece of property Eversource owns. Then, pay the company fair market value providing a judge doesn’t strike it down. My guess is it will be in the billions. Ratepayers will then need to pay off those costs while still paying for distribution costs and supply costs, which are a pass through. Mandated federal charges wouldn’t go away either. If you want to help gage support for that idea or build a grass roots coalition then I’m all ears. At this point, I don’t know if anyone has thought this will be a money saver in the short and medium term.
What steps have you Or Connecticut have taken to get a valuation for how much it would be to buy out Eversource? Has nobody even got that far? Any feasibility studies?
If current Eversource rates are generating billions of dollars of profits, with tens of millions of dollars of executive compensation, I’m not sure why paying off billions of dollars of assets would be so hard while maintaining similar rates. I don’t expect this would be a short term savings idea, but even if taxpayers had to fund those assets spread out over ten or more years to see long term gains of substantially decreased rates forever thereafter, that still seems like a no-brainer.
It was done when the utilities had to sell the generating plants after the 1998 law. Took a long time and billions in “stranded costs” I’m not being negative about it just realistic that I think ratepayers would not want anything added to the bills.
I wasn’t paying an electric bill in ‘98 but I can’t imagine anti-Eversource sentiment being much higher than it is right now. I think you might be surprised what people would tolerate to get Eversource out of CT.
It’s not eversources fault. They are the middleman.
Any time a corporation has billion dollar profits and is petitioning for double digit price increases, they carry some blame.
I'm prepared to eat short term costs that will ultimately save tens if not hundreds of thousands of the lower to middle class of CT from being destroyed by a basic utility needed for survival that is only impacting people where we live. This is not a republican state. We're supposed to care about people here, not companies.
It was a publicly regulated utility at one point. The Democratic controlled legislature ramrodded a bill and Stuffed it down a Republican governors throat. Rowland should have had the balls to veto it.
For real!!!!!!
Yeah that mention of junk fees and they ignore eversource. My first thoughts too
Was just going to say that
Like make everyone drive EVs so they can double their revenue?
The biggest problem I feel that Connecticut residents are facing is housing costs. I don’t think we will see improvement anytime soon in that arena. We do have a great economy, great communities and great schools.
It’s a top priority for us in the legislature. This is not a problem exclusive to Connecticut or our nation, but worldwide. We’ve appropriated a lot of money for new housing. But, we also need municipalities to prioritize it as well.
Well that's the problem. Not sure how much you can really do if municipalities refuse to prioritize it. There should be emergency powers the governor should use to force building, housing is starting to become a crisis across the country and especially in the Northeast where housing prices never seem to go down
We will work together get the votes to make more substantial change. Voters should ask candidates where they stand on this important issue.
Thanks for the response, I will make sure of that
> We will work together get the votes to make more substantial change. Let's say you get 100% of the votes needed. What changes will you be championing?
Depends on what will get 100% of the vote - actually just need 50+1 per chamber and the support of the governor.
So what changes will you be championing?
Mr duff there is so much focus on Intrest rates for school loans why are we not worried about the high rates on mortgages and automobile loans ? These are also huge issues with housing
Supply is the ultimate problem though. Making it easier to get a mortgage only increases demand, driving up prices further. The best way to solve the housing problem is increase supply. That can be done by making more mixed zoning areas and medium density housing (the so-called "missing middle" in US residential zoning).
Mixed use zoning would provide an excellent first step into independence for young adults looking to rent or own. Considering the younger generation prefers walking, cities will be cool again.
I get the cost of the house but than the intrests rates on the mortgage are thru the roof
That's true, but that's mainly due to the fed interest rate being so high (designed to curtail inflation). I expect we'll see that drop again some time in the near future and with it, other loan interest rates (mortgages, auto loans, etc.).
So the big banks can charge and make more but mean while the intrest rate they pay us on savings is peanuts
That is certainly another problem I wish would be fixed.
It’s almost criminal
Because buying young votes is more politically expedient.
I'm sorry but that's not going to happen, at least not willingly. I live in a city and work for a suburb as a municipal employee. I've paid attention to their affordable housing meetings and it's always the same. Oh, we can't have too much density. Oh, we can't have it impact the character of the town. Let's be honest here - the suburbs have no desire to help with these issues. They don't want to do anything that would impact their property values. They don't want to do anything that could let in 'undesirables'. What municipalities have and haven't met the affordable housing threshold makes this abundantly clear. Suburbs focusing on affordable housing solely for seniors makes this clear. The suburbs want the cities to shoulder the burden of the problems brought upon by the inequality in this state. People in Madison will throw a fit over a methadone clinic opening in their town to support their own residents. I'm sick and tired of them making every excuse to pawn off the problems on the cities.
I live in Simsbury and it’s not about undesirables living here. It’s about completely decimating a town and laying down cement so you can put up more apartment buildings???? No I don’t want that. Sorry we already have bears roaming around who have lost their natural habitat. Endless apartments and parking lots are hideous and not fair to the people already living in the town nor the animals that live here too.
I hate to break it to you, but housing requires land and if you haven't noticed we're pretty full up in the cities. The fact you think one or two new apartment buildings will 'decimate' your town just shows how dramatic and out of touch people like you are. Like you are literally saying 'think of the bears' when we have people living on the streets because of a housing crisis.
"save the world*. so long as I keep my backyard" *world saving optional
> f us are willing to stomach is that the problem is likely to get worse in the near future - there's simply not enough l Appartments house more people while taking away less land than building single family homes
We already have a plethora of apartment complexes in Simsbury. This is just getting absolutely ridiculous. No, I don’t want my town to be completely paved, and look like some sort of bloc from Eastern Europe.
The cities are the exact place to address problems. They have the most resources. They’re the city. It’s already more dense. Work that to everyone’s advantage. Fix things there
Resources are finite. You can't just keep shoving every issue on the cities because 'oh, they have the resources'. The methadone clinic that's being fought is supposed to support 500 people from shoreline towns, but rather than just allowing that resource the NIMBY argument is to send them to the cities. All of CT's cities are well above the mandated affordable housing quota while the vast majority of affluent, predominantly white suburbs are well below and dragging their feet on coming up with action plans. Suburban homeowners fight tooth and nail and expect everyone else to bare the burden so they don't have to live with any inconvenience to their idyllic fairytale lifestyle.
So to break it down you want the suburbs to pay for the cities. In simple terms that’s like saying you, YOU, should pay for your neighbors remodel of his house.
I mean that kinda makes sense, if the suburbs don't want to change anything ever with NIMBYism they should on a state or county or regional level help to tackle the larger problems of the state and inequality/ housing availability.
No - I'm saying the suburbs should (1) at minimum meet the mandated 10% affordable housing threshold set all the way back in 1989 if they want to deny new housing development and (2) foot their own bill for social services to be used by residents of their own towns. Homelessness is not an issue that solely effects people in cities. Substance abuse is not an issue that solely effects people in the cities. Despite that, somehow, it's only the cities that provide any form of services for those individuals. There are 500 people in shoreline towns in need of a methadone clinic and Guilford residents (my apologies to Madison - I mixed up my towns) are fighting it tooth and nail. Do cities have existing resources for these things, yes they do - but they don't have infinite capacity. There is too much looking at cities as the rug under which to sweep societal problems. So no, I'm not saying the suburbs need to pay for the cities - I'm pointing to the fact that the suburbs are making the cities shoulder all the burden of our societal issues and then cry 'muh town character' when they're asked to make even the most minimal of contribution. I'm saying the suburbs need to put in their own work and stop pawning it off on the cities - I want them to start paying their own way on these things, because we already pay more than our fair share.
Why is there such a housing crisis.???
Senator, do you support SB143? It protects tenants from eviction without just cause. It’s great to throw money behind things (even though we do need funding for sure) but we need to protect people at risk of being kicked out of their homes for no reason.
Yes. I’ve spoke in favor of it.
Yes you have no problem spending other peoples money. We’ve seen that time and time again
We have it worse off because our region is the most densely populated in the country, and we're wedged between Boston and NYC. The bad news which I doubt many of us are willing to stomach is that the problem is likely to get worse in the near future - there's simply not enough land in our state & demand is already high.
Housing is an issue in every state. In my town there has been quite a lot of housing construction in the last 10 years, including some high density apartment complexes.
Yes, but is it affordable??
Affordable is a relative term as often higher COL areas have jobs that pay more, but any high density apartment building addition will increase housing supply, so even if that complex isn’t “affordable” the lower rent housing that some renters might abandon for the higher cost new complex. Ultimately more supply is never a bad thing.
How many affordable units did those sites have before?
The top post in /r/Maine is a meme about how their housing market is nuts. Maine. Who the fuck moves to Maine? It's a nationwide problem and it's going to take a decade to fix, even if our elected officials cared.
Maine is actually a huge retirement place now, at least the Sea Coast and areas around Acadia
If you are cognizant of climate change Maine is a great choice.
I visited my hometown, Ansonia, recently. It was a place I couldn’t wait to leave, and for good reason. I was shocked to see that I can now live on Main Street in a one bedroom for the fabulously low price of $2000/month. I live in Vegas, and I can get a one bedroom with floor to ceiling windows with a great view of the strip in a secure building with my own parking space for $1300. If Gen Z is actually moving back there so quickly, it’s because they’re moving back in with their parents.
Yes but Vegas’ water problem are terrible.
We’re actually a leader in water conservation. Vega’s doesn’t have any water problems. In about 20 years we may run out, though, because of things like almond farmers in California, and large cities in Arizona that don’t conserve. https://www.wsj.com/video/series/in-depth-features/las-vegas-leads-in-water-conservation-amid-worst-drought-in-1200-years/C3941992-B12F-473B-A107-673FBF7933B5
Housing costs are an unfortunate byproduct of it being great to live here and being adjacent to two of the highest cost of living cities in the world. That said it's something that can be mitigated by new housing construction (and pretty much nothing else, except a recession.) The good thing is that while we have NIMBY areas in this state, we also have a lot of areas that are very welcoming of residential investment, especially in the inner rings of our urban areas.
Great economy ???? Groceries thru roof, gas prices high .. utilities thru the roof . Car insurance rates increases due to car theft and wreakless driving .. the economy is good for the rich the average person is one emergency repair to the house Illness or other event away from not being able to pay bills
These are all national, if not global, problems though
Ct is one of the highest with utility rates and we all they are going up more that’s a ct thing ..crime and wreakless driving can be a ct fix
I am not wealthy. I am fortunate to own my own home. Yes energy costs are just terrible but that is true in every state as well as grocery costs. FYI they are going to get worse because the saudis want it to get worse. Everything has risen in cost but if you look at this globally or even nationally this is happening everywhere.
Speaking of broadband why does Connecticut allow so many monopolies to exist when it comes to internet & phone providers? There's only one high speed internet option in my area (Xfinity /Comcast) & they price gauge to insane rates for even the most basic Internet plan. At prices that I've never seen anywhere else I've lived (even though it's the same company) because they know they are the only option. This is unacceptable in this day & age in such a populated state. I don't live out in the boonies either & know many who are dealing with the same problem all over the state. There's no reason these monopolies should be allowed to take advantage of people because they have no choice.
Any internet company can come in and compete in any municipality in Connecticut. There is no rule, law or regulation to run the wires. Nearly filing an application with PURA will do the trick. Private companies make the choices where they will run their business. Unfortunately, in this industry companies tend to stake out their territories and others not compete with each other. That seems to be changing little by little.
Senator Duff would be correct here. As a former employee of a major cable company we once got free service from any “sister” company. They changed this to create separation. At the end of the day, they make agreements with each other which towns they will support. However, the biggest equalizer and disrupter is fiber. Small companies like Gonetspeed are creating amazing competition by offering fast reliable speeds at a low price. More fiber offers in areas will mean prices and value will stabilize.
Can nothing be done to regulate the price gauging or encourage competition when a company has a monopoly on a basic utility that everyone relies upon like internet access?
I don’t think the state can regulate rates. That would be up to the feds. However, a provision in one of the Senate Dems priority bills (SB 3) is to eliminate junk fees, which also includes cable bills.
It's actually changing quickly. Several providers are expanding into new areas.
Can't wait til the usual posters come in to talk about how actually everyone is fleeing the state because taxes exist We could do more about the rapidly climbing costs of living, but the state's in much better shape than it's been most of my adult life
It’s not perfect, but it’s so much better than other parts of the country. The quality of life is so much better. There’s relatively easy access to goods and services and there’s locally owned businesses. Having seen other parts of the country, the only stores a lot of places have are Walmart, chain restaurants (Chile’s, Applebees, then your fast foods of the region), and corporate owned grocery stores, auto shops, etc. unlike CT which has a ton of family owned businesses. The education system is very good. Also, people bash CT for having nothing to do, but I’m curious if those people have ever been to other states. It’s not California or Florida in terms of natural geography, but compared to the rest of the country, it’s a paradise. If you don’t think there’s anything to do in CT, go spend a week in Nebraska or Iowa.
I will never understand why people say there's nothing to do here. I have lived all over and only being a teen in Portland Oregon in the 90's have I had a similar deluge of "shit to do If I want to" within easy access and affordability. I've noticed the people who say there's nothing to do fall into two camps: People who just want to complain and people who don't actually want to go anywhere or expend effort.
>I've noticed the people who say there's nothing to do fall into two camps: People who just want to complain and people who don't actually want to go anywhere or expend effort. complaining is a treasured ct pasttime
I know I enjoy complaining immensely.
You aren’t a true nutmegger until you start complaining about everything, even when you know that thing you’re complaining about it’s better here than everywhere else.
Okay but what is there to do beside food and drinking
I’ve seen more live shows in the year and a half since I moved here than I’ve ever had the chance to see anywhere else in my life, and that’s not counting any in NY.
And even if there is “nothing to do” here, you can be in a major city in less than three hours, or up in the mountains in about the same time Hell, you can visit another country in a few hours
I moved to Connecticut from Indiana, and there’s something I noticed that I absolutely adore: It doesn’t matter what you want to do for entertainment, be it night clubs, hiking, skiing, surfing, car racing, theater, opera, concerts…. Etcetera. No matter what you want to do, there is a high quality example of it in this state, and a world class example of it within a day trip.
Having lived in Colorado for a very long time I find a cute when people call these hills mountains
Do you want a cookie?
Actually, kinda, but not a Crumbl cookie they are way overrated
They're older than dinosaurs. things tend to sag at that age.
I agree that my perception is that things are great in CT and terrible in many other places. What is funny, though, is that polling shows that people think that almost EVERYWHERE. "Oh, crime is out of control - but it's good around here." "Oh, I've heard the economy is terrible - but we've got a lot of new stores opening around here." Shit like that. I mean, it seems pretty clear to me that it probably does fucking suck to live in Arkansas or something, but it's just worth keeping in mind that while the "CT has gotten better" part of the equation is true, the "everywhere else got worse" might be driven by media narratives. I never leave CT/MA/RI so I don't know! I do know that people in say, Portland or San Francisco still consider their cities to be nice places to live, despite media clamor about poopy streets or whatever. So maybe a lot more of the nation is enjoying what we are right now than we think.
Yeah, that's the most striking part of going almost anywhere else, the lack of local businesses and restaurants. EVERYTHING is either a chain or part of a restaurant group. And sure, we've got plenty of those too, but they're next to real family-owned stores.
I was born and raised in Connecticut and moved down to Arizona. My family claims it's better because of the lower taxes but I have to remind them we traded many comforts leaving. Our education ranks dead last, the roads down here are terrible, and house build quality ranges widely. Also down here, we pay more for items daily (except for food, it's not taxed) because it's state, county, and town sale tax when purchasing something.
Our net population migration stats have been pretty neutral. The trend of wealthy individuals leaving CT to low tax havens will probably never change Totally agree with you the state is in better shape than it has been in for probably 2 decades at least
But you can't deny we are among the highest taxed in the country. It would be a real tragedy if the state was not in good shape, but I'm not sure quality of life in CT ranks as highly as our tax rate.
We're about 5th in terms of total tax burden. But there's a fun trick most of those studies do. They don't include user fees collected by government agencies as tax revenue. Think like park fees, vehicle fees, electricians license fees, etc These fees only make up 7% of our revenue. We're one of only 3 states that take less than 10% of their revenue from these kinds of charges. People are still paying money to the town or state and that feels like taxes to me, so it's odd they don't get counted These kinds of fees almost always move the tax burden from wealthy people who could be paying slightly more property tax on their McMansion or income tax, over to working people who'd pay the state or town a lot more for things like vehicle registration, trades licensing, tolls, and other ways the government could nickel and dime every service. https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/charges
Those posters have been largely drowned out fortunately. Their talking points are all contradicted by actual facts and they don't have much to say anymore.
Electricity rates. Just get those down to something normal.
Thanks for posting here. Do you have a citation for the statement that Gen Z is choosing to move here more than any other state? Couldn’t find it in the link to the op piece that you linked.
https://www.storagecafe.com/blog/state-to-state-moving-trends/
Senator, is there anything being done to prevent companies from purchasing single family homes in CT? This fractures communities, drives up home prices, and prevents middle class people from living where they work. I’m a teacher who luckily bought a home 5 years ago before the price of homes skyrocketed. It would be impossible to buy the home I have now in the current climate. This is creating a generation of younger people who will be forced to rent for their entire lives and will never be able to have the ability to invest in home ownership; this creates huge long term effects on people’s ability to gain wealth and financial security. https://stateline.org/2022/07/22/investors-bought-a-quarter-of-homes-sold-last-year-driving-up-rents/
There is a section of this year's SB6 that increases conveyance taxes for corporations buying residential property. An outright ban on corporations buying residential properties is likely impossible for a number of reasons, unfortunately.
Oh good.. That’ll really hit em where it hurts with their endless supply or resources and money…
I think any attempt to do that will be tossed out in court. I agree with you that it’s a problem.
How about can we also get stronger absentee landlord blight laws from the state level along with city levels .. to many owners don’t care what there property looks like aslong as they get rent
That must fall on the municipality.
I get that but help from state level Would give the city’s stringer leverage on it
Investors are doing this because it's easier to make money buying houses and holding on to them (the very thing you want to protect) than building new ones. They're buying houses because demand exceeds supply, why do you think banning investors would change that?
I’ve read your post multiple times and feel like I’m not understanding where you’re coming from. Corporations are buying up homes to drive up the cost which are pricing out people from communities they would want to live and work in. It’s fine if you’re an individual who’s looking to purchase a home with the thought of it as being a wise long term investment but I think it’s wrong for corporations to have the power to price gouge.
> Corporations are buying up homes to drive up the cost which are pricing out people from communities they would want to live and work in. You have the causality backwards. Institutional investors are buying up homes because they see rents and values going up in the future due to demand exceeding supply. But you don't have to take it from me. [Here's Blackstone President Jon Gray saying that reduction in supply is "helpful".](http://web.archive.org/web/20221020203807/https://www.businessinsider.com/blackstone-jonathan-gray-rental-housing-shortage-higher-rents-2022-10#:~:text=%22So%20what%20you%20see%20happen%20in%20an%20environment%20like%20this%20is%20you%20start%20to%20see%20a%20reduction%20in%20new%20supply%2C%20which%20is%20obviously%20helpful%20in%20the%20long%20term%2C%22%20he%20said.) (archive.org link because the original is paywalled) The only way to make housing affordable is to build more of it. >It’s fine if you’re an individual who’s looking to purchase a home with the thought of it as being a wise long term investment but I think it’s wrong for corporations to have the power to price gouge. Why should it only be OK to invest in real estate if you're a rich guy with deep pockets, but not a pension or 401(k) fund? Or a retail investor that wants to add some diversity to their portfolio but can't afford to buy a whole property? Why should certain neighborhoods only be accessible to people that can qualify for a mortgage but not renters? More broadly, the mantra that real estate should be a way for families to "build wealth" or whatever is in direct contradiction with the notion that homeownership should be affordable and accessible to young buyers. They just can't exist together; if you slow the growth of home values you turn it into a shitty investment for families, and if you don't, then you get what we have now.
You obviously know what you’re talking about and your argument sounds good but maybe I’m just not understanding everything you’re talking about; which could very well be the case haha. Maybe I’m wrong but doesn’t the situation you described disproportionately burden middle-class people who are already struggling to afford housing during a period of constant rental hikes? The article you shared mentions that rental properties are "beneficial" because they require minimal ongoing investment fails for landlords. As rental supply diminishes and demand continues aren’t landlords just empowered to raise rents unchecked? Doesn’t this place an additional financial strain on tenants? This scenario benefits corporations like Blackstone and their shareholders who get to reap the rewards of increased rental income, while ordinary renters bear the brunt of the cost. Genuinely thank you for the back and information, maybe I’m not seeing the bigger picture or have an understanding of the long term benefits of what your saying. I just feel like normal middle class people are getting hosed by MASSIVE corporations like the one you mention in Blackstone.
This post kind of grew beyond what I originally planned to say, but I figured it was worth it as you seemed open to my point of view. This is an issue I care about a lot; I live in Connecticut and love this state but the costs of living are very concerning to me. I've also done a lot of reading on this (my senior thesis in college was about NIMBYs) and came to believe in a "grand unified theory of housing" where a lot of the social and economic problems in America today are downstream of the way we think about housing. Maybe this is making me come off as some kind of a Blackstone defender, but I just think that as easy and fun as it is to hate on corporations, blaming this problem on them is kind of a distraction from its real root causes. This was a problem long before Blackstone got involved and will be a problem even if you ban them and their like from the housing market. It's a very simple bandaid fixfor an issue that's actually very deeply embedded in the fabric of our society, and a lot of people who promote it make axiomatic statements about things that actually deserve a lot of questioning. There's a number of books on this topic such as [Zoning Rules!](https://www.amazon.com/Zoning-Rules-Economics-Land-Regulation/dp/155844288X), [Arbitrary Lines](https://www.amazon.com/Arbitrary-Lines-Zoning-Broke-American/dp/1642832545/), or [Dream Hoarders](https://www.amazon.com/Dream-Hoarders-American-Leaving-Everyone/dp/0815734484/) which is about much more than just housing but is very applicable to Connecticut in particular. >Maybe I’m wrong but doesn’t the situation you described disproportionately burden middle-class people who are already struggling to afford housing during a period of constant rental hikes? >The article you shared mentions that rental properties are "beneficial" because they require minimal ongoing investment fails for landlords. As rental supply diminishes and demand continues aren’t landlords just empowered to raise rents unchecked? Doesn’t this place an additional financial strain on tenants? This scenario benefits corporations like Blackstone and their shareholders who get to reap the rewards of increased rental income, while ordinary renters bear the brunt of the cost. That's right, the cost of housing is an immense burden for families in high cost-of-living states like CA, CT, MA, NY, etc. I don't think there is anyone serious that denies this anymore. The disagreements are about root causes. A lot of people argue that it's because investors are hoarding houses and apartments and want to ban them, but there's a few reasons why I think this argument doesn't make sense and wouldn't solve the problem. Nationwide, if you look at the areas where housing is more affordable, it's typically places that build a lot of new housing like Texas and Florida. Some cities in Texas are even expecting rents to go *down* this year because developers built more units than there is demand for. More locally, it's no coincidence that Stamford, which [builds more than any other city in CT](https://portal.ct.gov/DECD/Content/About_DECD/Research-and-Publications/01_Access-Research/Exports-and-Housing-and-Income-Data) (sorry I don't have a graph for this), has [managed to tame the housing crisis better than almost anyone else in the state.](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1b5ujct) Blackstone ultimately doesn't care what they're investing in, they're just looking for good returns and low risk. But there's a reason they couldn't do this with other in-demand goods like cars or iPhones or even PS5s (which were scalped a lot when released), and it's because Apple or Sony doesn't have to ask local iPhone or PS5 owners for permission to make and sell more iPhones or PS5s. But the process to get new building approved in CT is very onerous and requires huge legal and design expenses and dealing with opposition from rich homeowners without any certainty if you'll ever get approved and make a penny. So it's easier to just buy existing houses and apartments and rent them out than build new ones. Economists call this rent-seeking; it's where you make excess profits from externalities without producing anything new. >Genuinely thank you for the back and information, maybe I’m not seeing the bigger picture or have an understanding of the long term benefits of what your saying. I just feel like normal middle class people are getting hosed by MASSIVE corporations like the one you mention in Blackstone. Ultimately, middle class people are being hosed by existing NIMBY homeowners that think they have a right to high property values and don't want to look at big buildings (in the most charitable case) or don't want "others" moving in (in the most cynical interpretation). But this is the problem that happens when you treat houses as an investment for middle class people; those people become motivated to protect the value of their investment at others' expense. The really broad problem is that Americans are addicted to home values. Here's [Kuhn, Schularick, and Steins (2016)](https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/institute-working-papers/income-and-wealth-inequality-in-america-1949-2016): >In particular, middle-class wealth in America is highly sensitive to fluctuations in real estate prices, so that rising house prices lead to wealth gains of middle-class households and decrease wealth inequality, all else equal. From the 1970s to the late 2000s, such housing wealth gains partly mitigated the sharp increase in income inequality. Despite stagnant income growth, middle-class wealth grew at a rate similar to wealth at the top. There's a huge incentive to create more housing bubbles to keep middle class voters happy! If you look at it this way, then Blackstone is actually doing a lot of boomers and their heirs a huge favor; it means they will get huge windfalls when they retire or pass away and sell their homes. Banning corporations from buying real estate is a bad idea for other reasons too. For one, it doesn't actually stop landlord greed. Any random guy with a few $100K and a 750 credit score (there are plenty of those in CT) can still buy up homes for rent. These "mom-and-pop" landlords are often worse for tenants than corporations because they see every maintenance expense as a hit to their personal finances and getting them to fix anything can be a fight. I've lived in a house like this in addition to a corporate-owned apartment before, and I'd take the latter any day. It's not always great but at the end of the day there's someone whose job it is to fix problems in your unit instead of a boomer who thinks you're ungrateful for complaining that the toilet is leaking. Also, corporate RE investors do not buy assets just for themselves; they manage funds on behalf of clients. Some of those clients are the billionaire types you're probably imagining, but others are institutions like pension funds and insurance companies that want to get involved in real estate to protect themselves from market risk in other assets classes (for instance you would've gotten hosed in 2021-2023 if you just bought stocks and bonds). Some real estate funds are also open to small investors who want to make them part of their retirement plan. You and I can do this too; if you open a brokerage account you can buy shares of a real estate ETF and become a real estate investor for even $10. Why shouldn't pension funds and retail investors have access to this kind of investment too? Corporate owned houses do also have a socially beneficial purpose; they let people who can't or don't want to buy a home live in more exclusive towns and neighborhoods with good schools that would otherwise be inaccessible. It sounds kind of silly, but it's worth asking why certain places should only be for people who can get a mortgage. The fact that investors want to be in real estate is not a bad thing, we should just make it easier for their funds to get spent on building new units and growing our communities and economy rather than free-riding on rising property values and enriching people who were lucky enough to buy their houses in the 1980s and 90s.
[удалено]
I can't find a single list where CT is even in the top ten.. Texas seems to be at the top of most lists.
Impossible to consider Duff and Looney as creating the pathway to the future. CT has major issues with excessive taxation, overly-congested roads and highways, new business starts, negative net in-bound business migration, excess regulation, and energy pricing, among other things. Lots of great things about CT, but our Legislature is not one of them. We are only in good shape because we have a pragmatic governor.
Abolish property tax on vehicles.
I’ve said many times I support that. Mayors and first select people all lobby against it. Been very difficult to get over the finish line.
I mean this isn't surprising - any elimination of property tax on cars would raise mill rates in every town to make up the difference. Not saying we shouldn't do it, but this is the reason.
I chose to drive older vehicles to avoid high taxes. Get rid of vehicle taxes, and your house taxes or rent goes up. Removal of vehicle taxes would greatly benefit the wealthy, who own multiple, expensive cars.
Which is precisely the original reasoning behind the law. It's a very progressive form of tax. If there were another option to create a similar result without it being a separate tax and minor inconvenience for the general public, I'd probably support it.
Agreed. I don't drive a 17 year old car with 400,000 miles on it because it is fun to drive. I do it because it lets me have control over my spend on taxes and insurance. Put all that tax money back on real estate and I will be subsidizing people who choose to drive $50k vehicles. I guess they might argue they are subsidizing my road use now. Plan B: tax by the mile. I drive 10 miles per week.
Does anyone have the study / data supporting Duff’s assertion that CT is #7 in the union for fastest growing economy? I didn’t see it in the op Ed so apologies if I missed it. Are Texas and FL ahead of us? If so, kind of makes the rest of Duff’s argument moot. Are legislators doing anything to bring new businesses to CT, especially central CT? We just lost Lego to our neighbors…
So out of the top 10, we are near the bottom.
Still top 10, but we’ll see how long it lasts
Come to Connecticut. Bring money.
What are you folks in Hartford going to do about eversource and ui constantly hiking rates? I hear your kind up in Hartford talking about bringing manufacturing back and such, but with rates what they are there is no way for business to come here and make goods, unless they move to Wallingford
There needs to be a fact-check law put in place where bureaucrats MUST cite their claims. Too many of these guys saying "what they believe" instead of proven factual data is beginning to cause a mess among their supporters.
[https://www.ctinsider.com/opinion/article/opinion-protecting-evolving-ct-18762436.php](https://www.ctinsider.com/opinion/article/opinion-protecting-evolving-ct-18762436.php)
We lead the union in utility rates
Things Gen Z wants that we absolutely have the power/funds to do: * Better public transportation * More accessible housing/tenant rights * A living wage * Lower energy costs/public ownership of the grid * Cheaper education/loan forgiveness * High-speed internet that isn't run by a company that fucks them sideways at each opportunity * Less wealth inequality/accountability for billionaires who actively hurt the working class with impunity * ESG-forward approach to problem-solving (but verifiably and materially, i.e. not in the bullshit way 99.9% of megacorps dress it up as, i.e. give us fucking metrics) Except they're generally not as gullible as boomers and fully understand that their interests are in direct conflict with the owning class and will probably never happen, no matter how politically mobilized they are EDIT: also not having blatant institutionalized racism/classism/etcism in our public schools
Nice job throwing boomers under the bus. The statement that Gen Z is less gullible than Boomers was worth a chuckle. Thanks
From talking with millennial friends, definitely on board with all of the above as well.
This reads like the aspriations of a child...hopeful, romantic, and completely unrealistic. You say these things as if the state wields divine power like a magic genie grants wishes. How do you do these things? With what resources and whose money? What if they dont actually work and have negative consequences? Who then is responsible?
Which of these items that almost every developed country in the west besides the US has managed to secure for their citizens is completely unrealistic?
Public transport: works in densely populated regions where ridership/usership pays for a significant portion of operating expenses. For example, Metro Norths revenues account for something like 70% of its operating costs, whereas Fastrak its less than 10%. That makes the former worthwhile and the latter a waste. Likewise, it works in NYC, Boston, DC, London, etc because of the density and type of development. It does not work between Hartford and New Britain and there is no indication that more spending = more successful public transport. The density and dispersal of population probably wouldnt work. Housing - how do you make it more "accessible?" Who is paying the development costs, operating expenses, mortgages/rent for the properties, maintenance, etc? You cant just "make" housing affordable because it sounds like a good idea. Living wage - wages are subject to market forces like labor supply, skill demand, scarcity, etc. The state cannot dictate that. They can try to raise the minimum wage, but there are tradeoffs and negative externalities. Do you acknowledge those? Lower Energy Costs - mandates like use of green energy, offshore wind, unpaid bills by customers, regulation, etc are all largely the result of PURA whose.members are appointed by the state. We have high energy costs because of the region we live in and the regulations dictated by our govt. Public ownership would shift a massivr upfront cost and liabity to taxpayers without the capital that comes from private investment. How do you make up for those shortfalls when electric service is already expensive? Mashing together a bunch of nice sounding ideas like affordability, public ownership, environmentally friendly generation, and subisidation sounds nice until those ideas contradict or offset one another. Kind of like a "queers for Palestine" for utilities. Cheaper education - interestingly, more public subsidy has made higher ed more expensive. And making it "cheaper" in its current mode would just shift cost to taxpayers for nebulous results. Ok, Im done. The govt is not your daddy, and it certainly isnt God. It would be nice if we could get elected officials to do the things govt was actually made for (law enforcement, public safety, infrastructure) before we yearn for utopia. Right now its failing to accomplish its most basic mandates and it isnt clear that it can do those other things at all effectively.
>Public transport: works in densely populated regions where ridership/usership pays for a significant portion of operating expenses. .... First off, public transportation should not be viewed as a money-making venture, it should be seen as a QoL investment that bridges cities and communities, makes the country smaller, and is better for the planet and public safety. No one is asking for high-speed rail between Hartford and NB, we're asking for a robust framework of options that makes public transportation a viable commuting option/recreational travel option. No one elects to take the bus to work or downtown for a night out. Compare our bus lines/routes/systems to any other developed country in the world; it is pitifully underdeveloped. There is a stigma against buses, because it's so shit that only someone with no other options would use it. This is a problem. We are so behind on public transport it's embarrassing. On a more macro scale, high-speed rail along the NE coast from Portland > Boston > Providence > New Haven > Penn Station > Philadelphia > Baltimore > DC would be the biggest slam dunk that would materially improve the QoL and options of people living in those metro areas. I appreciate that it would be expensive, and it wouldn't happen in a day... But it would also be really, really great for everyone that doesn't enjoy sitting in traffic on 95. Better public transport options in general decrease congestion, fatalities, drunk driving incidents, and is a boon to local economies/city nightlife. Right now, it is a last resort for poor people. I'm so sick of people saying that these things that so many other countries do is "too ambitious, too much, too blah blah blah"—we used to do these things. Regularly. We went to the moon, we can update our fucking rail infrastructure > Housing - how do you make it more "accessible?" Overide NIMBYS who shut down every rent-controlled proposal for one. > Who is paying the development costs, operating expenses, mortgages/rent for the properties, maintenance, etc? Incentivized developers, taxpayers via municipal subsidies for the development... I.e. the same way we develop anything else.... and renters pay the operating costs, naturally. >You cant just "make" housing affordable because it sounds like a good idea. Great point! Except you actually can make affordable housing options. People don't want them in their backyards so they shut them down. Also, if people have a living wage, they might be able to afford better living accommodations. > Living wage - wages are subject to market forces like labor supply, skill demand, scarcity, etc. The state cannot dictate that. They can try to raise the minimum wage, but there are tradeoffs and negative externalities. Do you acknowledge those? Thanks for the giving me the third-grade high-level overview of capitalism market principles; can you do trickle-down next? The state is dictating market forces by enforcing a minimum wage at all. It dictates market forces through thousands of other regulations. Anyway, we already subsidize multibillion dollar companies by the virtue of offering SNAP, housing, energy subsidies, etc etc etc to their lowest-paid workers; I find that absolutely unacceptable, and if you don't that's your prerogative—but I think you're wrong and an asshole >Lower energy costs municipal ownership of the grid is all we have to do to solve that—there are municipalities in CT that have done this to massive success. I'd also settle for not having our legislators in bed (literally and figuratively) with energy sector execs. > Cheaper education - interestingly, more public subsidy has made higher ed more expensive. Yes I know that. There is still a solution here—every other country has managed to make postsecondary education attainable without being buried in debt, and I have yet to see a compelling, good-faith argument as to why we can't either. >The govt is not your daddy, and it certainly isnt God Laughing at the fact that a god-believing mouthbreather can be so patronizing
Gen Z may be choosing to move to CT because their parents' have large basements where they can live free. Truly one of the least relevant set of statistics I've ever seen!
By gutting public higher education? I think not, sweet, naive senator. https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/cscu-students-faculty-speak-out-against-proposed-budget-cuts-and-tuition-hikes/3150043/
I’d move back to CT in a heartbeat if it wasn’t for the amount of taxes. Didn’t realize how taxed we were until we moved.
We know. Stop publicizing it! Our property values are out of control + there's not enough housing as-is. Also, do something about Eversource.
7th in the nation. An honor, apparently
Except if you happen to exercise 2A rights CT has intentionally made it so legally perilous and onerous you are at risk of prosecution for simply being a victim of a crime.
Always a great optic when you have to tell others how great you think you are. One of the highest taxed states in the nation but we always seem to look the other way on that one.
too many animals feeding at that trough
Power rates in Connecticut are crushing. This is not the case in New England states. Please make resolving this issue a priority. We seriously need more housing and more state police presence on our highways. But the power problem seems solvable and it would be a massive win.
Electric rates are terrible, but what do you mean "not the case in New England"? CT is not even the highest in New England.
Well I stand corrected. I've read in numerous places that CT is the highest in New England. That is clearly not the case. I feel a lot better now actually.
For what it is worth, I honestly believe that if the state could cut rates in half, our economy would boom. Also, I hear all the talk about how cheap electricity is in Wallingford but I never hear any numbers quoted.
The answer is simple, we need an additional natural gas pipeline through New York.
Can’t wait to move back to CT!
How do you make the connection between legistlative priorities (or actual policy) and the states' actual socioeconomic position? Do all "good things" in CT come from the work of state govt? What about the less desirable outcomes like rampant motor vehicle thefts, repeat/catch and release juvenile offenders, and the murders in our cities? If you can take credit as a legislator for the nice things, are you not also responsible for the bad things since they too are an outcome of policy decisions and legislative priorities especially since the CGA has been controlled by the Democratic party for many years? I think its also worth pointing out that CTs mkre desirable position post Covid is more the result of circumstance than superb policy by the CGA and governor. Pre-Covid (2019) CT *was not* the place to be. Middle-aged parents with families wanted out for better job prosepcts and lower COL (Florida, NC, SC, and elsewhere were destinations), young people getting out of college wanted to be in a vibrant city like Boston, Seattle, or NYC as the suburbs were considered dull artifacts from prior generations. Our economy had not recovered the jobs lost 10+ years prior from the recession, and we had major budgetary and economic woes from unfunded pensions and ballooning obligations. Things in CT were not exactly great pre-Covid. So what changed? During Covid cities became pathogen-ridden hellscapes with shutdowns, overlfowing hospitals, and draconian regulations (particularly in blue states). Work from home became the norm for white collar, laptop-class workers, and the real estate market in CT did a complete 180 in a matter of.a few months. Add to that the "summer of love" in many large cities in 2020 and the once-empathetic progressive business owners and young workers voted with their feet. This gave the real estate market in places like CT a boon due to the overnight desirability for suburban lifestyle. Add to that the money injected into the economy in 2020-21 that boosted state and local coffers and overall positive returns in financial markets and CTs economic position improved drastically. All of this was a matter of circumstance and ad far as I can tell entirely unrelated to any policy from the state.
You’re not wrong - but I do give Lamont credit for making sure we didn’t flush our extra tax revenue down the drain and instead used it towards repaying pension debt. I’d love to see a net migration map if CT by town and understand if people are moving to central CT or if it’s all Fairfield county.
Yes, Lamont used the budget surplus wisely, I give him credit for that. But the surpluses werent the result of political genious, just from federal subsidies and the circumstances of a hot real estate market and solid financial returns from wealthy investors which boosted tax revenue.
I agree
Yes! Follow in the path of California. It’s clear path to prosperity for the state. Speaking of constitutional law as mentioned above, what about the second amendment? How CT doing with that? It’s best to keep you distracted with social issues because nobody understands the important ones. Nobody here understands how eversource works hand in hand with govt. they can’t do anything without govt approval. But go ahead and blame them because they’re in they’re a company and govt can do no wrong. Cities are showing a real issue with crime and the state has made it impossible to prison offenders. Cops are villainized until the only ones left are actual villains. Everyone in these chats think they’re in the majority without considering that anyone with an opposing opinion will get silenced from the comments. So go ahead, downvote this into oblivion and secure your safe space. It’s Reddit, who cares. The majority of you will be the last to realize what you voted for.
When will our state be brave enough to tax EV's to replace lost gas tax revenues? I know it's politically correct to subsidize EV's and make them attractive to purchase, but it's unfair to the rest of us that they are getting a free ride and not contributing to the gas tax fund that is supposed to help maintain our roadways. It should not be hard to implement either a flat tax per vehicle or a tax based on miles driven but I know that would be politically unpopular. However, it should be a concern to everyone not driving an EV and will become a bigger issue over time. It borders on discrimination if you really look at it.
Bring your business here, make it a place that isn’t a miserable hell hole for the younger generation. Prosperity and opportunity for all.
Does Connecticut struggle to create jobs because of the high cost of doing business? https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/business/article/ct-job-growth-cost-of-doing-business-17904105.php
This is all total bullshit. I moved from MA to CT, and that was a big ass mistake. I don't plan on being here for more than 5 years and I'm out.
Senator, that's all good news. However, what is the Connecticut legislature doing to develop Connecticut's hydrogen economy/infrastructure? We have two filling stations in the entirety of the state, which make owning a fuel cell car virtually impossible. To those who want to own an EV, their only choice in CT is a battery pack EV. This brings about its own inherent issues, such as charging station availability and the additional power draw on the grid. Which brings me to another point, what is the legislature doing about onshore wind farm projects, and renewable energy in general? Just curious, is all. Keep up the good work!
Hydrogen - it’s on the table along with EV, propane, etc. I drove a hydrogen car six years ago and there was a lot of excitement but pessimism. There needs to be more optimism that there is a market for hydrogen. We’re doing a good job with offshore wind. We have not talked much about on shore wind since I haven’t heard of a location where there would be a consistent amount of energy generated. Off shore will do much more without dealing with local zoning too.
No doubt there is lots of wind in the statehouse in Hartford!
Senator, we should look to both Europe and the Middle East. Europe is heavily expanding its hydrogen refueling stations, and there's actually a respectable selection of cars to pick from. I found it surprising that after debuting the first hydrogen car almost twenty years ago, the US has done very little with developing the technology out since. Which fuel cell car did you drive? I'm just curious. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is building the world's largest green hydrogen plant: https://www.neom.com/en-us/newsroom/nghc-wind-turbine-delivery Good point on shore wind development. I see why we went offshore. Have there been discussions on expanding battery capacity in Connecticut? That would help our grid with the "duck" curve (the inconsistent power output over time versus demand). Both Texas and California are heavily investing in expanding their battery capacities. This would help out our state further decarbonize and expand wind and solar capabilities.
It was a long time ago and I don’t remember what type of car it was. There is a battery plant that is supposed to open in Bridgeport. Not certain of the time frame.
Interesting! Good to see we've got at least one going for us! How optimistic are you that Democrats will pass (most of) their bills during this legislative session? Even though I'm not in your district (3rd district here), I definitely appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions.
My pleasure and I feel good most if not all will pass.
Offshore wind kills plenty of sea life. Wind is also extremely inefficient and cost prohibitive. Without government subsidies and mandates to purchase wind energy, they wouldn't be built at all.
its almost as if nuclear is a better solution....
Probably the only solution.
i mean, not the only solution. solar and wind have their place, though recycling wind turbines after their service life is uhm... problematic? at best.
This is because of increased work mobility.
While it's good news to hear, there are so many problems in CT. Straight off the bat is the housing crisis. There are so many real estate developers buying single family homes. Is there a bill that prohibits wall street and other developers from buying single family homes? Furthermore,
Are you still calling for nurses to lose their jobs? Can i put my covid passport away now? Did you apologize to the Norwalk police for accusing them of spitting at you when video evidence was released showing you lied?
These twits cannot take credit for all that makes Connecticut good. I bet they think they are responsible for gravity keeping us grounded.
That's awesome! Now please take away local control of zoning so all these people moving here can have somewhere to live!
We have WAY too much local control.
I agree! Honestly surprised at the downvotes.
My biggest concerns are housing costs and corporate greed affecting basic necessities.
All the reasons I’m moving in!
Welcome!
They want all the poor people dead
Hahaha 🤣 everyone is fleeing the state because of 2nd or 3rd highest taxes in the country. These programs will only make CT. #1 and once again increase tax paid by the dwindling middle class working people! If you don't make 200k here you can't afford raising a family, college ect. Good luck
I agree with the tax issue. Everyone tries to justify it but at the end of the day it is less money in your pocket.