Does Commercialization

Mean Lower Taxes?

To the Editor:

Stamford has been used as a comparison of what Newtown can expect to become if not controlled. Stamford had a choice: develop into the commercial city it now is or remain a bedroom community of New York. It chose development for three important reasons: community involvement or lack thereof, the citizens of Greenwich would not allow commercialization to occur there (it should be mentioned that Greenwich has one of the lowest property tax rates in Connecticut), and an influential developer named F.D. Rich. Stamford citizens wrote letters to the editor, just as we do, but the significant factor, above all others was F.D. Rich. Rich, like Harrall-Michalowski Associates, had many contacts in local government and was able to convince them that development was good for the people, regardless of what the people wanted. He had a vision of building Stamford into the commercial center it now is, and he would be the developer that benefited from the new construction contracts. By developing Stamford he would simultaneously improve his financial, social, and political position in the community. Of course, its proximity to New York City, two major highways and a railroad serving commercial and commuter needs made it an ideal location for economic development.

Should we choose to commercially develop Fairfield Hills it appears we could do so with some degree of success. The problem is we don’t have a vision or consensus for Newtown, let alone Fairfield Hills, that goes beyond the current fiscal year. Do we want Newtown to develop the way Stamford did? Do we want to sacrifice our quality of life for insignificant tax revenue? Do we want to encourage large commercial development because we think it will ease our property tax burden?

Having lived in Stamford for more than 30 years I can tell you that commercialization did not reduce my taxes one penny; in fact, it increased them. Along with shopping malls, retail centers, office buildings, trading companies, restaurants, gas stations, construction trades, etc, came an incursion of people requiring new homes, apartments and schools, more infrastructure, increased policemen, more police cars and town equipment, medical facilities, transportation, more government employees, increased welfare costs, not to mention the explosion in other social services or the atomic expansion in special educational services. The additional tax income raised didn’t come near paying for the additional costs associated with them. With incremental expense exceeding incremental income the taxpayer was left to pick up the tab. Commercialization and economic development caused my taxes to go up. Therefore, I have no reason to believe that commercialization in Newtown will do otherwise. I encourage all my fellow Newtowners to carefully think through what you really want at Fairfield Hills, because you can be sure whatever you want will eventually turn up in your taxes. Until we have a Newtown plan and can evaluate how a Fairfield Hills master plan relates to it your property taxes, each year will continue to be an unpleasant surprise.

Al Roznicki

169 Hanover Road, Newtown                                     August 1, 2003