Hartford Business Journal

January 19, 2015

Issue link: https://nebusinessmedia.uberflip.com/i/466183

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 20 of 23

www.HartfordBusiness.com January 19, 2015 • Hartford Business Journal 21 Biz Books Managing office distractions boosts workplace productivity "D riven to Distraction at Work — How to Focus and Become More Productive" by Edward M. Hallowell (Harvard Business Review Press, $26). STRESS — at work we feel its pressure every day. The mix of overflowing inboxes, people dropping in, meetings, phone calls, voicemail and email adds a witch's brew of distraction. The results: attention deficit and declin- ing productivity. Hallowell offers "stop that; do this" advice to help minimize the daily distractions, and boost both mental sharpness and output. The highlights: "Screen sucking — how to control your electronics so they don't control you." The more you use the phone, respond to email's pings and search the Web, the greater likelihood you will surrender attention from your to-do list. To gauge this attention deficit, keep a log for a week of how much time you spend using technology. Look at the log to see what amount of electronic-related time was actually spent on your to-do list items. You'll quickly identify wasted time. The fix: Reserve a 30-minute pocket in the morning and afternoon for screen time. This creates time for uninterrupted focus on tasks. When you need a break, don't use your electronic device like a binky by play- ing some mindless games. Instead, read an article or talk with someone about an item on both of your to-do lists. "Multitasking — how to say no when you have more to do than time to do it." Play- ing Ping-Pong with tasks isn't just inefficient, it's inef- fective. Switching back and forth between tasks requires refreshing your memory to reestablish focus. That's time that could have been saved, not wasted. Addi- tionally, complex tasks require con- centration and switching increases the odds of overlooking critical information. The fix: set priorities and follow through. Learn to say no to yourself and to others. When it comes to others, politely decline requests by saying, "I'm in the middle of something; may I get back to you in …." The same tact can be taken when colleagues drop in. You'll also learn how "worrying," "play- ing the hero" can also lead to "dropping the ball." Hallowell's message: Never confuse activity and progress. • • • "Innovation Judo: Disarming Roadblocks and Blockheads on the Path to Creativity" by Neal Thornber- ry (Evolve Publishing, $19.95). Large businesses don't start large. They start with an entrepreneur filled with original ideas (i.e. new, better, different, faster). As the business grows, it adds layers of employees, management, silos, proce- dures, red tape, congruent thinking — and, with respect to innovative ideas to spur growth, corporate con- stipation. No one challenges the status quo because they don't believe anyone wants to listen. For those who want to get them to listen, Thorn- berry looks to the prin- ciples of judo [seiryoku zen'yo (maximum effi- ciency, minimum effort) and jita kyoei (mutual welfare and benefit)] and the concept of ju yoku go o seisu (softness controls hardness). His seven principles start and end with preparation. What does it mean to be prepared? Your idea may be great to you but it may not look great to others. You have to flesh it out and find ways to sell its benefits (e.g. cre- ates value for the firm and its customers, defensible, scalable, etc.) to others. There's no one-size-fits-all approach to selling it because others have different perspectives and hot/cold buttons. Part of your home- work involves learning about how to frame your idea to the individuals whom you need to get onboard. That framing requires some semantic antics. Instead of saying you have an idea, open with "I believe there's an opportunity for us to…." This shows the other two things: 1. You've done your homework; and, 2. You value and appreciate their input. n Jim Pawlak is a nationally syndicated book reviewer. Jim Pawlak otHer voiCes Fixing Hartford's tax problem By Dave Panagore W hile the recent Hartford Tax Task Force was charged with making recommendations for Hartford's property tax system, their focus repeated and followed what is now nearly an annual game of hot potato. For about 20 years, Hartford has had a de facto split tax rate, charging the statutory 70 percent of fair market value (FMV) for all com- mercial property, but only around 30 percent FMV for all residential property. The split tax rate was imposed as a temporary measure to save residents from damaging property tax increases, with the hope that everything would eventually go back into alignment. That hasn't happened. Since then, the business community and residents have argued over the split tax rate, with businesses shouldering the larger burden. In my five years here in Hartford I've seen a number of these committees comprised of many of the same players locked in bat- tle year after year, with some but not much progress. Last year's Tax Task Force seemed to make the most progress, but under their agreed upon plan, it will take another five years for the residential tax rate to even be half the commercial rate, moving from 30 percent of FMV to 35 percent. As we enter a new legislative session at the State Capitol, it is the right time to review the task force's recommendations. In doing so, I am equally struck by what is not there as by what is there and that has driven me to three conclusions. First, the market forces driving residential value and commercial activity in Hartford are not the same, and split tax rates are perma- nent features of many urban areas. To try and bring them into alignment under a single tax structure may be doomed to failure. A single tax rate, which may have worked earlier in the city's history when there was far less develop- ment, or what currently works in smaller towns with comparatively little commercial activity, may not be successful in Hartford, which has millions of square feet of office space and the many mega-campuses of Aetna, Travelers, The Hartford and Hartford Hospital. In urban core cities of the 21st century the two classes of property — residential and com- mercial — are divergent and do not operate under the same market conditions. Assessing both at 70 percent of FMV may in fact be an arbitrary attempt at a false equality. While the relative share of the tax burden must be adjust- ed if business is to thrive, 70 percent across the board may not be the right target. Second, Hartford's tax problem is exac- erbated by the significant amount of tax- exempt property in the city — roughly 50 percent of the Grand List is not taxable. At the same time, the state has consistently not funded the PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) program at required levels. While Gov. Mal- loy has increased the PILOT payment to a degree, it remains far below the required funding levels. If the PILOT was fully funded as the Tax Task Force recommends there would be no budget problem and there could be a great deal of rate relief and equalization of the relative tax burdens between residen- tial and commercial properties. Third, the automotive tax is the most regressive tax in the state. It has a disparate impact on those least able to pay. It also gen- erates only a little over a tenth of the overall property taxes collected in the city. One solution to fixing this burden is to expand the property tax conversation to include automotive taxes paid. In other words, we should focus on the aggregate res- ident tax bill that takes into account taxes paid on both real property and automobiles. If, for example, the automotive tax is cut in half, we can then balance that against an increase in the residential tax rate. Using this approach, the residential valuation can be raised from 30 percent to 35 percent of FMV in one year, not five years. Under these conditions, the net tax impact on the average single-family homeowner is effectively zero, so long as we make the not unreasonable assumption that they own two cars; a family with one car would see their net taxes owed increase by around $200. Raising the prop- erty tax to 35 percent of FMV without reduc- ing the auto tax would result in a $500 tax increase for the average homeowner. This action will also put money back in the pockets of those most likely to spend it here in the community. And, to some degree, car reg- istrations in Hartford would increase as people who want to obey the law, but financially can't afford it, will register their cars in the city. While the state should fully fund the PILOT, the legislative delegation on whose doorstep this issue always ends up should also start thinking outside the box, taking on an issue the governor has endorsed, which is automotive tax relief. n David Panagore is the former chief operat- ing officer of the city of Hartford. Dave Panagore ▶ ▶ Switching back and forth between tasks requires refreshing your memory to reestablish focus. That's time that could have been saved, not wasted. ▶ ▶ ... market forces driving residential value and commercial activity in Hartford are not the same ...

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Hartford Business Journal - January 19, 2015