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?