As the Connecticut General Assembly nears the midpoint of its session, this seems a good time to survey some of the forces moving toward the inevitable end-of-session train wreck.
On the budget side, we have a series of dueling estimates — from the Malloy administration, the state comptroller, the Office of Fiscal Analysis and, of course, the minority Republicans. They all see red ahead, just in varying shades of intensity.
But that hasn’t stopped the administration and legislators from proposing an array of grand plans to make everyone’s life better. Since education is the topic of the day — and all education ‘solutions’ come with huge price tags — it seems likely that education reform will break the bank.
So what’s to become of grand local-benefit ideas like reopening the Stratford festival theater, building the final eight-mile leg of Route 11 and refurbishing the XL Center in downtown Hartford?
The obvious answer is none of these problems is bleeding today, so let them wait for another time.
But, in the spirit of Governor Malloy’s call to think big, can’t we do better?
This seems a wonderful opportunity to experiment with private-public partnerships.
In each case, the state as a whole would be better off if each of the projects proceeded. Yet in each case, the benefits would flow to a smaller subset of citizens who would use the facilities. Shakespeare lovers from far and wide would again flock to Stratford, but most of the seats would be filled by Fairfield County residents. Same story at XL Center. While some people from Torrington may drive in for Lady Gaga, most of the tickets will be sold to fans in Greater Hartford. And the most frequent users of Route 11 would be local commuters.
So why not go in search of a cost-sharing model? Look at it as an extension of the Malloy administration’s controversial plan to tie nonprofit grants to economic development impact.
Let’s pencil in the state for, say, 25 percent of the costs of a project. The remaining 75 percent would need to come from other sources.
For Route 11, federal funds seem a longshot. The idea of tolls has been raised but with an estimated 20,000 vehicles a day, the math for the $1 billion project would be daunting. At $2 per vehicle, users couldn’t even pay the debt service much less the principal. Would some private investors be willing to take on the project if they could put up a full-service rest stop on a lease that was even longer than the bond term?
When Howard Baldwin unveiled his vision for a $100 million overhaul of the XL Center, the question of how much he was prepared to invest just hung in the air. Certainly a rejuvenated arena has value to the building’s major tenants — Baldwin’s hockey team, whether at the AHL or NHL level; UConn’s basketball teams; Live Nation’s shows — and the building’s operator, AEG. What would those contributions look like? Certainly some sort of per-ticket facility surcharge should be on the table. Would downtown hotels and merchants be prepared to invest? Would a stakeholder-owned arena authority work?
In Stratford, the city owns the decaying theater. What would it be willing to contribute? Would some business be willing to pay to put its name on the theater or the resulting festival or both? What would the local business community kick in?
By using these proposed projects as a laboratory, the state would be signaling that the days of earmarks, ‘it’s-our-turn’ thinking, and government largesse are over. The era of thinking big is alive but its success hinges on how much the stakeholders are willing to invest in making something special happen.
Shared sacrifice comes in many forms. Here’s an opportunity to shape a win-win and be fiscally responsible at the same time.
