On Jan. 26, Paul Hughes had a front page headline article in the Waterbury Republican-American titled “Local revenue-raisers.” In the article, dispensing with the property tax exemption on tax-exempt organizations was mentioned as a possibility for raising more revenue for the income-strapped state.

One proposal — which apparently came from the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities — proposed payments-in-lieu-of taxes by non-profits if they collect rent or other income from their properties.

The article then states, “If the state reimburses towns and cities for tax-exempt properties at a lower rate than specified in state law, [tax-exempt] property owners would be required to pay the difference, up to 20 percent of the tax rate.”

I would like to know how the state can violate state law and then shift the corrective measure onto the backs of the tax-exempt property owners. What am I missing there?

The state either has a law which must be followed or else the law should be rendered null and void. The fact that a “work-around” situation is being proposed where the state is violating its own law(s) instead of being allowed to be taken to court over the matter by the short-changed cities and towns is mind-boggling.

Craig Hoffman lives in Cheshire.

Leave a comment