How Special Interests Stole Bristol

"Gifts" From Government


Bristolites like small-town character a lot...
But a group of transformers with big plans do not!
As those who asked why, weren't provided a reason.
The transformative plan does not fit locals' pleasin'.
The upscale shopping was hook, line and sinker,
But the mass of apartments and debt was the stinker.

It could be their heads weren't screwed on just right.
It could be Southeast Business Park debts were too tight.
Or perhaps that the state offering cash was too tempting,
For those special interests whose taxes we're exempting.

But those watching their budgets watched details get buried,
A public purse handout despite promised contrary.
Officials hoped opposers would be kept at bay,
And pull like a small dog with overweight sleigh.


Whether well intended, misguided, without choice or confused,
They pretended that there could be nothing to lose.
Sixty-thousand tax dollars and no input from town,
They renamed "Mum City"  "All Heart", (doubled down)


So despite the predominant public dissension,
Subsidized infrastructure and a contract extension,
They said that two million was all we were funding,
In an effort to stop referendum from coming!


Then they claimed that the public and the markets had both,
Guided smartgrowth and the walkability approach.
And as those who weren't Gruber-ed knew better before,
The piazza promise was revoked evermore.

For the visions projected were on the back shelves,
And left for taxpayers to finance themselves.
And even more telling something was amiss,
The Fastrak was coming, Transit-oriented-ness.


So with free land and cash for a pie in the sky,
Residents demand the who's whos tell us WHY!

They claim, "It pays for itself with new tax revenues,"
"Just a smidgen of help, a few dollars of dues ."
"For a small group of people knows better than you"
"What Bristol wants, needs, and what it should do"

The plans for dense housing and increased population,
A social justice ladder of public transportation,
Is supported by those who have something to gain,
Denouncing the busway and pleading for train,

For instead of a focus on high unemployment,
They offered "vibrancy" to entice your endorsement.
For the property values near transit are higher,
Perhaps some will "flip" Bristol, then move to retire.

Then it's likely high crime rates and taxes ensue,
And force out Cindy, Lou and me and then you.
For grants from government aren't from Santa Claus,
They aren't gifts at all, they are DEBTS, bound by laws,
That take Christmas gift money from struggling residents,
And give them to agenda enablers as presents.


Perhaps Bristol's true heart, doesn't come from a plan.
From big government, developers, or their marketing man.
Maybe Bristol...perhaps...needs a little bit more!
The will of the residents should be restored!

(Needs three sizes more)

Government Pressure and the First Amendment in Bristol, CT

After more than a year of the issue first surfacing, the Bristol Press has made a change to their format
that will forever change the public dialogue in Bristol, CT. The change brings some civility to the comments section but is the downside worthy of the measure? Many elderly residents and those whom have shunned the popular social network of Facebook will forever be absent from public discourse in the forum. The change also leaves municipal employees fearful of retribution from disclosing their personal opinions regarding government overreach and improprieties. However, political insiders and special interests have applauded the change as productive to the promotion of Bristol's downtown revitalization. It is this particular issue that drew my attention at the start of the government's advocacy for such. In fact, it is my contention that the issue brought the actions of some local officials and stakeholders beyond the constitutional limitations of government intervention of free speech.


Video Credit Nutmeg TV Public Access (Fair use all rights reserved)

The action spurred one of the most commented stories of all time in the Bristol Press and was featured in the headlines of the popular Connecticut news source aggrage site "The Capitol Report". Those opposed to the project were seemingly "called out" as toxic to public view while those anonymously slandering "the naysayers" were left apparently unscathed.

The declarations of certain public officials has in fact resonated in my mind for quite some time, inspiring not only my newly found inspiration to advocate in defense of my rights but to commemorate the anniversary of the event in an address to the council.



The change of the new source's format could not come at a more awkward time as pointed out by local victim of abuse of private property rights. . This culmination of discontent was fueled by the disgust of commenters as an apparent extension was already decided behind closed doors. The comment thread had also escalated to a concerted effort to stop the development by way of referendum blocking a change in city ordinances regarding the planning region bringing the Fastrak to downtown Bristol. From what I can see, the story has apparently since disappeared from the internet, comments and all. I do however have an archive of the story from last year, which I will include directly in this blog for a brief period to reflect on those who will forever left out of the conversation. I'm guessing there will be much less of it at the expense of the people of Bristol.

You can view an archive of the story by clicking here.

Of Debt and Planning

Can a society lay claim to a moral high ground when using debt to finance planning agendas for future generations?   Our nation's founders were well aware of the dangers of the burdens of public debt, the hazards of awarding bounties ,  and their impact on the prosperity of our nation.  Yet despite these warnings and lessons from history, we have become passive in our convictions.  We have allowed our representatives to continue to pile debt upon the backs of our children and our grandchildren under the guise of investment while exceeding budgetary limitations.  The federal debt has now risen to $17.5 trillion dollars and our state debt has climbed to over $40 billion with both budgets continuing to run deficits.


The state of Connecticut is currently investing an unprecedented amount of the state capital budget  (over $1 billion a year and more than 1/3 of the capital budget) on Conservation and Development.  These funds are driving a restructuring of land use and economic development while the state is running a nearly $1 billion budget deficit.  Transit oriented development is the mode that Connecticut legislators and planners have chosen for land use planning and economic investments in much of  the of the state.  Master developers of large mixed use developments including affordable housing are among the primary recipients of these funds.  In fact, on March 28th, the State Bonding Commission bonded $1 million dollars to establish a new special fund specifically designated for such projects.

But what of the desires of taxpayers to live in such communities?  A recent poll from the National Association of Realtors has determined that less than 15% of Americans would prefer living in an apartment or condominium with 86 percent listing "privacy from neighbors" as an important factor in choosing residency.  We as a society should consider the will of the generations carrying these debt burdens.  Will they find such accommodations any more inviting than the current generation? Perhaps one might ask their children or grandchildren if they might like to live in a transit oriented, "walkable" community.  It is they who will be paying for it for decades to come.  Is it moral to bind them to this future with debt without their consent?

Affordable Housing No Square Deal from Depot Planners

 The Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agency's Housing Report
outlines the State of Connecticut's  recipe for economic growth;   "...should transit service improve radically, opportunities shall arise."    The report relates the development of both transportation infrastructure and adjacent housing options and addresses it's implied  effect on the region's economy.    The final pages in the CCRPA Housing report summarize in similarity to the Central CT Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy,  The State of CT Plan of Conservation and Development , The State of CT Consolidated Housing Plan  and Bristol's 2013-2014 Housing Action Plan.  All of these documents suggest housing and business development be concentrated along transit corridors.  The study suggests a lack of public transportation options places otherwise independent individuals in situations of fiscal distress and that lower transportation costs make housing more affordable.  The $340 million+ CTFastrak busway project which will require $9 million/year in subsidies is touted therein as a much necessary project which could spur such economic growth.

 Bristol, CT is specifically named in the report as a future Transit Oriented Development zone, with 1,000 future housing units having such a designation.

The CT DOT's current rail study is also mentioned regarding the possibility of extending the Waterbury Branch of recently plagued Metro North to Bristol's Depot Square.  The report also goes into detail regarding the Bristol's Housing Authority not meeting the needs of Section 8 applicants by HUD's standards.

Subsidies will undoubtedly be the avenue to pave the way for such progressive development endeavors as any private investment is reliant on such partnerships.   The Department of Transportation estimates public transportation subsidies at anywhere from $2.50 to $42 dollars per ride depending on the mode and length of travel.   Providing transportation subsidies to financially distressed individuals to make housing more affordable most obviously leaves no net gain to the equation.  Such keynesian economic strategies reliant on deficit spending and continual subsidies are simply not productive at stimulating economic growth as they burden residents with decades of interest payments on the debt that absorbs what would otherwise be free capital.   Perhaps those involved in the decision making process should be using unbiased resources, rather than the data provided by the Center for Neighborhood Technology's Housing and Transportation Affordability, when contemplating the economic benefits of such transformative projects.  A more comprehensive study, completed by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco members, titled
Roads to Prosperity of Bridges to Nowhere? , Theory and Evidence on the Impact of Public Infrastructure Investment" thoroughly analyzes the macroeconomic data of such investments without focusing strictly on the socioeconomic aspects of low income residency.

  It is important for community leaders to make a balanced assessment of economic investments or municipalities can find themselves in the heart of a newly constructed center of urban decay.  As taxes and regulations have continually increased in the region since 2007, median income has been in decline.    Such deficit spending would inevitably push even more of the middle class below the poverty level.  In this regard, instead of providing options and opportunities, it will severely limit choices.  Future generation's quality of life will be diminished as more Americans will be added to the class of those who cannot afford  personal transportation or will find their American Dream a modular shell of a home, as recommended by the planners themselves in the report.