🔒Making the political case to save Hartford

The political case for regionalism has been a constant during the four decades I have lived in Connecticut. It has been advanced in two forms with superficial differences and a common denominator.

When presented in economic dress, the argument is that it makes no sense for a small state to be subdivided into 169 towns and cities — with each municipality bearing the cost of administering its own schools, fire, police and other departments.

When presented in social-justice garb, the argument puts the spotlight on the wealth disparities (especially in the public schools) between municipalities separated by no more than a common road or slice of turf, and argues that our municipal boundary lines are both an anachronism and an artificial border wall that unjustly favors the residents of West Hartford and Simsbury, for example, at the expense of the poorer residents of Hartford.

The issue is front and center because of Hartford's perilous financial condition, and Mayor Luke Bronin has been taking his case for regionalism directly to suburban voters (including public meetings in West Hartford and Simsbury).

Putting aside the “not in my back yard” irony of blue state suburban affection for the borders, I believe there is enough common sense appeal to the possibility of cost sharing and expense reductions to discuss a form of regional compact for Hartford area municipalities — but only if the discussions are founded upon three principles and subject to two conditions.

The first principle is that there is nothing inherently wrong with having 169 municipalities in the state. As Aristotle said, we are political animals, and people commonly organize themselves into territorial political units based on cultural and geographic factors.

These same units can band together to become a part of a larger whole in arrangements that balance each unit's economic and political autonomy with the benefits and requirements of being part of the whole.

For example, we live in the United States of America because each of the 50 states retain considerable power and authority over their own fiscal affairs while being a part of one country.

The second principle is that each unit, acting under its elected leadership, is responsible for its own fiscal affairs — managing its revenues and expenses, balancing its assets and liabilities, paying its bills, and the like. In this regard, and even after allowing for Hartford's small property tax base, the Dillon Stadium and the Yard Goat's ballpark fiascoes of 2016 speak to an enduring hard wired level of mismanagement that is the fault of the city's elected leaders and the people who wanted them in power. They (not the suburbs) are responsible for the current predicament (and they should own up to it).

The second principle — that each unit is responsible for its own finances, must be balanced against a third principle, which is that the members of the whole (here the municipalities in Greater Hartford) should be willing, in a reasoned way, to assist a troubled member — if for no reason other than their self-interest in keeping the region of which they are a part solvent and stable.

However, “reasoned” assistance should be neither a “blank check” bailout for past sins, nor part of a short-term fix that kicks the can down the road to a later day. This is where the two conditions mentioned above come in.

First, any regional compact of assistance should be offered as an element of a bankruptcy reorganization of the city under Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code. The rationale for this condition is that the new money (which includes any money saved by regionalizing) would be on the table to help with the future — not to pay for past financial sins or for unsustainable union contracts, which would be disposed of and/or restructured by the court.

This would be an easier political sell to the towns and cities in the region (helping to build a sustainable region in the future), and is a common in corporate finance when new money comes in to help finance a debtor's exit from bankruptcy.

Second, the political system that brought Hartford to this point would have to yield some of its financial sovereignty to the municipalities in the region.

The form that this would take is up for grabs and politically sensitive, but the point is that it would be unreasonable to expect suburban voters to help finance the city without some checks and balances in place to be sure the same thing does not happen again.

In my June 20, 2016, column (“Hartford should consider bankruptcy”) I expressed profound sadness at the condition of our Capital City, and described bankruptcy as a “robust corrective mechanism” that could wash away liabilities in an amount sufficient to pave the way to a brighter future.

There is good reason to believe that some form of regionalism could be a part of that process — and it may be that bankruptcy and regionalism are both necessary conditions to the realization of that future.

John M. Horak is the director of TANGO Nonprofit Education and Consulting.