ANOTHER USELESS JAY WALKING LAW?

READ THROUGH TO THE END ... TO SEE HOW LAWS ARE FRAMED AND EXECUTED!!!  JUST THINK WE PAY THEM TO MAKE THESE USELESS LAWS!!!


From: ROBERT STRYKER
Subject: public act 06-176
To: attorney.general@ct.gov
Cc: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Wednesday, June 9, 2010, 10:41 AM

Attorney's General Office: I have a question pertaining to part of Public Act 06-176 which, in part, states: municipalities have the "option"  to initiate a real property tax freeze but, among other qualifications, ..."Applicants must be at least 70 years of age..." According to the "Property Tax Relief for Older Adults: A Profile of Connecticut's Local Programs", published in 2008 by our legislative's Connecticuit Commission on Aging, several communities: Guilford, Monroe and Lyme have local property tax freezes that require the applicant to be 65 years old; not 70. I believe that Guilford and Monroe initiated their tax freezes before this Act came into effect whereas Lyme did so after the fact. This Act states that this tax freeze program is optional, so I would like to know how these specific towns are circumventing this age requirement stated in 06-176, or is this age requirement also optional if another community would like to establish a similar property tax freeze? Thank you for your prompt opinion. Bob Stryker The follow up answer to my question sent to the attorney general's office and posted in your blog: Huh?  Is this another useless Jay Walking law?  This "law" [12-170 v & w] states that seniors must be 70 to receive an optional  tax freeze on their property - if the town so votes for it - and the state attorney general office (supposedly representing the "laws" of the state) claims that they have..."no authority over local decisions relating to property tax relief"... then why the hell is their a law in the first place?  Is our legislature making work for themselves with laws that cannot or will not be enforced by our own state attorney general?  If so, let us all make it better for our seniors and petition for and vote upon an optional and more equitable property tax formual for our town similar to those in NJ and NY. It seems whatever we can agree upon we can get, regardless of any state statutes. Let's keep our seniors in their homes in the highest taxed state in the union. Bob Stryker