Identity Crisis Development in Bristol

Is fear mongering and self loathing a predevelopment strategy in Bristol, CT?  It seems as though some Bristolites are suffering from a nanny-state induced identity crisis.  Towns and cities across the country implementing new urbanist redevelopment strategies have embarked upon an effort to rebrand themselves using methods and labels that most regular folks find quite peculiar.  Much of what has appeared in the local media has been focused around some of the region's baseball teams, some whom have been moved around in deals focused on new taxpayer-funded stadiums and comprehensive economic development projects.   Hartford's Transit-Oriented deal includes high-density housing and commercial development at a projected cost of $350 million,  The $63 million dollar stadium project relies upon public debt to be repaid with projected revenues through the nonprofit quasi public-private Hartford Stadium Authority.  Hartford holds a twenty-five year contract with the former New Britain Rock Cats whom now yeild a new name based upon Hartford's railroad history.  The public has been told that the name "Hartford Yard Goats" was proposed in jest, chosen by lottery and subsequently adopted.  Most normal people consider it quite an odd identity.


 The State of Connecticut's Governor's legacy of chasing out industry and replacing it with housing can be seen reverberating in nearby New Britain.  Mayor Erin Stewart's name has been appearing in the local press and in Bristol's social media groups as the regional transportation agenda props up affordable housing with subsidies. Development within a half mile of transit transforms the city's downtown buildings from places of employment into transit-oriented housing.   She recently announced her city's new ball team name, "The Bees" in a press release.

 “On the city seal is a beehive, and underneath the city slogan in Latin it means ‘Industry fills the hive and enjoys honey.’ It’s a tribute to our industrial past.”

It seems that the past has eluded future planning.  The plans indicate that there is a housing imbalance in New Britain as jobs outnumber adjacent housing units by a 3:1 ratio.  This epitomizes the wrongheadedness of the state's direction as it pursues it's agenda of prioritizing housing over employment.   Has the entire state forgotten that employment is what brought people to the Hardware City in the first place?

Here in Bristol we are witnessing the same phenomenon.  We may likely have the best ball team name in the region because the Bristol Blues is not involved in such endeavors.  We have been spared from having to fund the erection of a new coliseum and parking facility, but there is indeed a focus locally to try to reinvent Bristol and make it into something new.  The efforts have not been led by the citizens themselves, but instead by a small group of people imposing a new identity onto a city that they feel has lost it's former self.  Not only has the public-funded branding excluded the public-at-large, the city's public meetings on the topic are practically inaccessible to most residents due to their early daytime scheduling.  The extended group's roster consists of a former employee of Bristol's former downtown master developer, board of finance members , city councilors, chamber of commerce employees and local nonprofit Mum City organizers looking to throw out the old and come in with the new.  "All-Heart" didn't stick with the residents, but they feel it will help grow Bristol.  It appears that it could more likely help grow a new government backed housing bubble.

click here for sources

Growth seems to be the focus of these individuals and other supporters of this downtown new urbanism plan.    But exactly what kind of growth are they seeking?   Bristol's grand list history shows growth of more than 40% in a decade and it remains more than 30% higher after the housing bubble started stabilizing.  When confronted with this fact, one advocate of taxpayer subsidies without public consent declared that "growth is much more than that".  Could this be a reference to the density and vertical development growth that these people are in favor of?  I received no explanation.  Employment growth seems to be the obvious necessity but has eluded the priorities of these people.  In this span of time we have lost more than thirty percent of manufacturing jobs in Bristol.  These market-driven jobs are what brought the largest growth and prosperity in the history of the city.    Production bears the fruits of growth in any healthy sustainable city.  Arts and culture are necessary elements in society and should be promoted, however, such depression-era priorities may pacify the whims of many but I do not find that such taxpayer-funded projects will lead to prosperous economic growth.   Rome also had it's bread and circuses.

 Bristol's  Enterprise Zone was created to entice development to a low-median-income area but Bristol's Public Annual Finance Reports indicate that Bristol's unemployment has lagged behind surrounding communities and is expected to continue to as a result of it's creation.  Additionally, a focus on retail development downtown is unlikely to bring good paying jobs to local residents. In fact, retail and food service jobs happen to be the lowest paying jobs in the country.  This type of development is designed specifically to boost transit ridership because the predominant users of public transportation at off-peak times have historically been recognized as low-income.  This is not a coincidence folks.  This is the future that is being planned for downtown Bristol and there are people that are "mum-city" about it.

Meanwhile we have commercial growth of the same nature these maestros are supporting (minus the high-density housing) occurring naturally and without a subsidy in Bristol's primary commercial corridor.  This also happens to be the areas that the self-loathing advocates are most unhappy with as they try to steer commercial growth into geographical areas that have proven to not be economically sustainable.    Even pharmacy giant CVS has relocated from across the street of Bristol's Depot Square to the most viable location in the Enterprise Zone.   This area also happens to be at the end of Bristol's major commercial corridor.  Most people are happy with the new construction as it is much more attractive than the former buildings at that location.  It will also generate more tax revenue for the city.  Some people however have voiced their discontent with the new construction stating that, 

"Bristol doesn't need a new pharmacy".  

Apparently unaware of the reason for relocation, the lesson in local economics has evaded their recognition.  As one local businessman pointed out at a recent city meeting, investors want to develop where there are high traffic counts because that's where the largest amounts of people can be reached. It's a fact of life not to be ignored, lest the residents suffer loss of personal property in the attempt to spite it.   The development of new pharmacies is in inevitability in a nation with more than seventy percent of it's residents taking prescription drugs.


When the majority of your city's residents own a bank account you will continue to see the construction of new banking institutions.  These are signals of consumer habits of the population and not the inadequacies of planning.   What would happen should a city choose to not allow for such development?  Wouldn't such action would be detrimental to the growth and reputation of a city?  To what extreme should a city strive to limit growth to a particular geographical location?

If we refuse to recognize and appreciate the free growth happening across Bristol, we will likely see the stagnation that some have been fear mongering about.  It's difficult enough for businesses in Bristol to establish themselves and remain afloat as the governor continues his agendas of excessive taxation and unsustainable budgets for radically expanding public transportation.

What some people fail to recognize or acknowledge is that grants and subsidies for centrally planned developments are not merely gifts from government.  These monies must first be taken from successful business owners and property owners whom are often struggling to stay afloat.  In this regard, subsidizing development, tax abatements, etc. creates a playing field that's not quite level and can be potentially damaging to existing businesses.





To simplify the point, let's say that market demand in a community of 60,000 residents such as Bristol was able to sustain six locally owned businesses in a particular market.  Market research would indicate to potential business investors that there is not sufficient market demand and investors would not likely be interested in entering the local market.  But when municipalities offer incentives to encourage investment where the market does not, the new business that would not otherwise have been established can encroach upon the potential incomes of the existing six businesses.  This puts an additional burden on existing businesses competing in this government-induced crowded market.  This an often unforeseen consequence of local market intervention.  New business doesn't necessarily equate to more business nor business growth. 

The spending habits and attitudes of the residents are what most strongly affects the market growth in any free society.   Americans must recognize the fact that free-market growth is the lifeblood of America's prosperity.  It is the essence of the reflection of the free choices of the consumer.  If we do not embrace it, we will surely lose what is left of the freedom of choices it offers.  It's happening right in front of our eyes.  How's your vision?

Enemies of An Open Society: Downtown Deception Pt. 1

Upon visiting one of Bristol's greatest assets called the local library, I found a fascinating book called The Open Society and It's Enemies.  After reading the first few chapters I found myself relating what I was reading to the rockiest and roughest outcrops of Bristol's political landscape infrastructure.    It had me thinking about the suggestion I have received from some members of the public that perhaps it's come time to start talking about the actions of some individuals and what length some will go to in order to protect their agenda.
Have THEY engaged in an effort to derail and deride any opposition or independent thought regarding Bristol's redevelopment?
This group of people whom seem to be in a position where they have a great deal of information about the future of Bristol.  One can only wonder why they're not sharing the details with the general public.

These people are intricately involved in the process.  They should be explaining the benefits of the projects they are advocating for and clarifying the facts with the public.   They are instead focusing all of their effort on trying to discredit those asking questions.   They refer to those opposed to implementing a centrally planned top-down agenda in downtown Bristol as anti-investment, downtown conspiracy theorists, self proclaimed messiahs with ridiculous claims of lack of transparency whom are suffering from irrational paranoia from contrived conspiracies about government cabals trying to get people to give up their cars and get onto public transportation and into dense urban environments.


They claim, "There is no connection between the busway and the RD plans other than old commentary. "  Most incredulously, they stated that "Depot Square is not about transportation."
They also say,  "These folks need to stay off the internet. "

Well, IT IS amazing what you can find on the net.

Let's compare some of their quotes to reality.

In this chart from Bristol's former Master Developer, we can see a graph of a public-private partnership that Renaissance Downtowns calls The Unified Development Approach.  Members of this group of stakeholders have a profound understanding of the development process that Bristol has embarked upon.  Despite the assertions of some members of this group, one can plainly see that the transit agency is a key component in this type of development.

With public ire reaching frenzy levels regarding the planned downtown housing project in the local Bristol Press blog, I called for a town meeting to clear the air.  It never happened.  Can you fathom the reason?  According to one source, Bristol's former mayor told city councilors in 2013 "not to talk about" the details of the project.  One can see in section 3 in the meeting minutes below that the plan is to alter the regional demographics.  Stakeholders in attendance at the meeting must certainly be able to explain the role that demographics plays into this downtown scheme and have been asked to do so.  Instead they have resorted to a tirade of demeaning members of the public.   If the partnership they support provides the transparency they claim then why hasn't the public been informed of these details?

Stakeholders have asserted that the Depot Square plan is not part of a larger plan.  One can clearly see that the Central Connecticut Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) is indeed part of the incorporation of an integrated regional plan.  One can find that much of these regionally planned projects have been spun like a web into some local political campaigns,   It appears that some want to take credit for following a carrot on a stick and pretend these projects were their own idea.

One has to wonder how a weekly writing spinster whom claims that the mayor is part of a cabal that lacks transparency can publicly claim that the Depot Project has nothing to do with transportation.  The following downtown CEDS projects "may be seen as interrelated", according to the description from regional planners.  Do I need special glasses for the vision to see it this way or are members of the public excluded from this perspective?  Perhaps only the members of this exclusive and elusive group are allowed to see or speak of it?


Structured parking has only recently become part of the city's Plan of Development but it has appeared for years in the 2011 CEDS report.  Structured parking, high-density housing and public transportation are integrated in the plan and described as supportive of each other.  The downtown transportation hub is described as intermodal.  Is this about transportation?  Do you believe the local commentary and opinion or the state and regional documents?

Commentaries and annual reports are worlds apart.  Do you believe that the reorganization of planning organization to Councils of Governments renders all previous plans and documents irrelevant?  Some stakeholders have implied so.  Do you believe that the Depot Square Project has nothing to do with transportation just because they said so?

Yes it is true that the Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agency is now defunct, but it is clear that the agendas of some have not changed.  Despite claims from the self-proclaimed seeker of transparency, the Central Naugatuck Valley COG did not assume Metropolitan Planning responsibilities for Bristol until July.  The Capital Region Council of Governments MPO 2016-2017 Unified Planning Work Program  document refers to their support of the Depot Square project and the implementation and compliance of the Complete Streets law.  The CRCOG is working to integrate projects in the Sustainable Knowledge Corridor, implementing Transit-Oriented projects on the from the regional level on down to Bristol.

The Department of Transportation's website says that they adopted the Complete Streets policy in October of 2014.  The report states that the prime consideration of motor vehicle users when designing of roads, "has led to a motorized vehicle dependent society."  This is the same philosophy that can be found in many of the city's planning documents as planners would have you believe that it is societal habits and not the conveniences of personal transportation or the inability to afford it that lead people to live with or without an automobile.

Even the 2011 Downtown Concept Plan Submission from Bristol Rising (whose public relations liaison was employed by Renaissance Downtowns) mentions that some are seeking alternatives in life and transportation to the "car-crazed lifestyles" of personal transportation.  I have yet to meet someone in Bristol whom is an advocate who will "lead by example" in this manner.  The advocates all seem to want to plan this for someone else to live in.


This "freedom from auto dependence" is supposed to be what allows the disposable income that provides the boost to the local economy.  Do you think that that such a development sounds like something that will be affordable housing for teachers, police officers and other people of similar wages?  Perhaps we should ask the people involved in the Unified Development Approach who don't claim that the project has nothing to do with transportation.  Where are they?