A 'vision' for downtown has become a part of a political campaign for some Bristol politicians. But what exactly is this 'vision' and where does it come from? Connecticut legislators, planners and regionalism advocates claim that the visions of the futures of cities and towns come from the citizens themselves through the public participation process. Federal transportation policy guidelines mandate such input. But what is very new to Connecticut is a much stronger tie of financial allocation to the State of Connecticut's newly formed councils of governments and their member municipalities' Ten Year Plans of Development. Bills were introduced in the legislature this year that direct the revenues of municipal automobile taxes to newly formed regional organizations. The premise of reducing the high costs of automobile taxes in cities with high mill rates seems a noble thing but anyone with a remotely remedial understanding of economics knows that this "savings" of money has to some from somewhere. Senate Bill 1, introduced by State Democrat Senators Looney and Duff, introduces a scheme to distribute revenues and allocations from automobile taxes, hospital funding, and economic development grants from these agencies on merits tied to the state's "Responsible Growth" guidelines. 
These mandates have communities like Bristol at odds with the free-market in it's pursuit of economic development. The partnership of the state's sustainable communities efforts include the Department of Transportation, Department of Housing and the Office of Policy Management and their role in the equation equates to state sponsored economic development targeting communities' distressed neighborhoods to promote transit ridership. This is why the City of Bristol's targeted place for growth (the enterprise zone) is in the city's highest rail-oriented poverty area. The results of the policy have been costly and time consuming. Most residents don't understand this is one predominant reason for the city's inability to garner private investment capital.
As economist Milton Friedman once famously said,
" One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."
Incredibly, despite the fact that experts have expressed that the city's current plan would fail, some people have blamed the lack of development of the property on the city's current mayor and have made it part of their campaign against him. Ironically, it was the one of those candidates whom voted to buy the barren parcel of local ire for municipal use years ago. However, the original plan sold to taxpayers was a community center for public use. That plan was scrapped when the state and federal funding didn't come through. Now what we have being pushed by a party claiming that the current mayor "has no vision" is publicly-funded high-density, busway-oriented affordable housing apartments originally sold as a "no public funding" project. Whose vision is that? It's not the residents of Bristol's as one can clearly see in the city's Plan of Development survey report. The company that the City of Bristol contracted to do the survey included their suggestion of a locally inspired plan based upon the survey's results.
Governor Dannel Malloy has professed his dedication to his transportation vision for walkable communities on numerous occasions. His party leaders even crafted a bill to create a transit corridor authority to push the ugly details through in top-down fashion if he cannot get his subservient party members to implement it. It has become apparent to many residents that some particular candidates and project stakeholders have made their biggest priority to try to convince you that the governor's vision is Bristol's vision (as if everyone in the corridor simultaneously woke up one day and decided they all wanted exactly the same thing as all these legislative changes were taking place.) Some even went as far as to suggest that the Planning Commission remove factual information from from the city's website that does not support their agenda.
One of the biggest issues for residents is not how do we develop the Depot Square parcel but what can we do with the parcel that does not involve pushing the risk burdens onto unaware taxpayers. I concur that the only moral course of action in the pursuit of allocations is to inform the public of the risks and to allow for referendum. This has been at the forefront of my advocacy for the past eighteen months. Some political candidates have endorsed the idea of referendum while others have declared that they "were elected to lead." Do they really think that subservience to the governor displays vision and leadership? I hope these people soon realize the purpose of their oath to the state constitution is to define the guidelines of their service in office. Therein it is clearly stated in SEC. 2.
"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority."
It would appear that the biggest issue for some politicians and their political operatives is "What's the best way to sell the citizens a pig-in-a-poke?" These Democrat insiders have been entrenched in the establishment for more than a decade but claim to be campaigning against "the good ole boys". It's sad really just how far people can try to stretch the truth. And just how great is this ambiguous "vision" they claim to have? This grand vision this is so great that it cannot survive public disclosure of the details. It's so wonderful that they fear it cannot survive a referendum. It's a plan so great it cannot survive a public debate. It's a vision so wonderful that it requires ignoring the responses of the citizens in their survey. It's a plan that is so financially unsustainable that it is at complete odds with the free market. It's a plan that necessitates the propagation of untruths by the allies of public figures. It's a development model so great that when the experts speak of it they include the disclaimer, "when it's done right". It's a plan so controversial that it requires the creation of public-private nonprofits free from open meeting requirements. It's a vision so great that it demands ambiguity from elected officials whom respond, "I don't know", when asked if my assertions are true. Whose vision are they really promoting while campaigning on open government and transparency? Perhaps the people whom worked on the 2012 GOP national platform are onto something?
Is Malloy the Wizard of Our Cities' Economic Prosperity?
Metro Goldman-Mayer omitted Frank Baum's metaphors about society when transforming Baum's children's novel into it's classic film. You be the judge." First you must put on the spectacles.”“Why?” asked Dorothy.“... Even those who live in the City must wear spectacles night and day. They are all locked on, for Oz so ordered it when the City was first built, and I have the only key that will unlock them.”He opened the big box, and Dorothy saw that it was filled with spectacles of every size and shape. All of them had green glasses in them. The Guardian of the Gates found a pair that would just fit Dorothy and put them over her eyes. There were two golden bands fastened to them that passed around the back of her head, where they were locked together by a little key that was at the end of a chain the Guardian of the Gates wore around his neck. When they were on, Dorothy could not take them off had she wished, but of course she did not wish to be blinded by the glare of the Emerald City, so she said nothing. Then the green man fitted spectacles for the Scarecrow and the Tin Woodman and the Lion, and even on little Toto; and all were locked fast with the key...Even with eyes protected by the green spectacles, Dorothy and her friends were at first dazzled by the brilliancy of the wonderful City. ...There were many people–men, women, and children–walking about, .... Many shops stood in the street, and Dorothy saw that everything in them was green. ....There seemed to be no horses nor animals of any kind; the men carried things around in little green carts, which they pushed before them...."
