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?