Tolling rhetoric intensifies
Greenwich Representative Town Meeting to consider no-toll resolution
The resolution was initiated by town resident Laura Gladstone, who said she wanted to send a message to Gov. Ned Lamont and state Sen. Alexandra Bergstein, D-36, both of whom support tolls and are Greenwich residents.
GREENWICH — The contentious debate around tolls on Connecticut’s highways will be taken up by the Greenwich Representative Town Meeting on April 8.
The RTM will consider a nonbinding resolution declaring it is “opposed to the imposition of tolls on its residents” and calling on the town’s elected representatives to “oppose any measure that would impose tolls on our constituents.”
The resolution claims it would be a “substantial burden” for residents to have to pay tolls, particularly because “the residents of Greenwich already pay more in taxes and fees than most residents in states around the country.” Additionally, the resolution states tolls would result in an increase in traffic and pollution in Greenwich because drivers would use local roads to avoid paying to drive on the highway.
Since reinstituting tolling would affect every resident in the state, what residents think about the issue “should be a major factor in the making of that decision,” said RTM Moderator Tom Byrne.
The resolution was initiated by town resident Laura Gladstone, who said she wanted to send a message to Gov. Ned Lamont and state Sen. Alexandra Bergstein, D-36, both of whom support tolls and are Greenwich residents.
“If Governor Lamont hears from (one of ) the largest (towns) in the state that they are upset that he went back on his campaign promise of tolling only trucks, maybe he will listen to all of his constituents that the majority of people in Connecticut are against tolls,” Gladstone said.
Gladstone, co-founder of a citizens group called Fiscal Freedom for CT, is not a member of the RTM but Greenwich residents can get a resolution before the body with 20 signatures of registered voters. Her petition included signatures of state Rep. Fred Camillo, R-151, and former state Sen. L. Scott Frantz, who represented the 36th District for 10 years before losing his reelection last year to Bergstein.
Bergstein, the first Democrat elected to represent the district, which covers all of Greenwich plus portions of Stamford and New Canaan, since 1930, made tolls a centerpiece of her campaign. Soon after being sworn in she proposed legislation returning electronic tolls to the state’s major highways.
Her bill SB 102 has been referred to the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Transportation and is one of several being considered. A committee vote on at least one toll bill was to come as early as Wednesday.
She has strongly defended her proposal, blaming the poor condition of Connecticut’s infrastructure on underinvestment and mismanagement of public funds.
“It’s time to fix this failure with evidence-based policy,” Bergstein said Tuesday. “The evidence shows that electronic tolls, much of which would be paid for by non-Connecticut drivers, would allow us to fix our trains and roads and reduce travel time significantly. This is pro-business policy.”
Camillo, who is running to be Greenwich’s first selectman, is on record against tolls and he said Tuesday he wants to hear from the RTM.
“While it is non-binding, I do think it sends a message to those public officials supporting them and claiming that ‘everyone they talk to is for the tolls’ that it is not the case and in the opinion of many of us is a minority view,” Camillo said.
The Greenwich delegation to Hartford is split on the issue, with Camillo and state Rep. Livvy Floren, both Republicans, opposed to tolls and Bergstein and state Rep. Stephen Meskers, Democrats, in favor of them.
Meskers, the first Democrat elected from Greenwich to the state House in more than a century, is still also a member of the RTM. On Tuesday he indicated he planned to be at the April 8 meeting.
“I want to hear people and I may choose to speak depending on how the conversation around the resolution proceeds,” Meskers said. “I want it to be a productive discourse around it.”
Greenwich will not be the first municipality to consider a resolution against tolls. On March 5, Stamford’s Board of Representatives voted to approve a similar non-binding statement opposing them. Trumbull, Enfield and Sherman have also passed resolutions against tolls.
First Selectman Peter Tesei said the RTM is within its rights to consider the resolution.
“I do not support the imposition of tolls in the state as Connecticut has not demonstrated any ability to safeguard the money that is designated to protect our transportation infrastructure,” Tesei said. “Given the information released thus far, any toll on any motorist is a highly regressive tax on the working class that will have a negative rippling impact not only on residents and consumers but on businesses as well. This is not a way to grow and improve the state and local economies.”
Moves by municipalities to vocalize against tolls has gotten some pushback from members of the Legislature. Last month, state Rep. Jason Rojas, a Democrat from East Hartford, posted a tweet wondering if every town that passed an antitoll resolution should lose state infrstructure money. Rojas did later say he was posing it as a question, not a statement of policy but his tweet did get a response from Bergstein who called it a “great idea.”
“You want state funds to fix your roads and parking problems? Then be part of the Solution,” Bergstein tweeted.
Byrne took exception to both Rojas and Bergstein’s tweets.
“I was appalled to read the suggestion by one state legislator, seconded by one of Greenwich’s own representatives, that the expression of an opinion by a town legislature that was different from the state legislator’s own opinion should be punished by financial penalty imposed on any town that dare to speak on the issue,” Byrne said. “What has happened to the constitutionally protected right of free speech? How dare a state legislator try to silence those who disagree with him or her.”
Bergstein replied saying, “I wish Mr. Byrne would speak with me directly. I listen to everyone and respect any view that’s based on real facts.”