Season's Grantings: Why Can't We Be Stockton?

Photo credit Jessica Mulholland

  Why can't we be like Stockton, CA?  They have a walkable downtown, a community theater and a City Hall that looks much like the Memorial Boulevard School building in downtown Bristol.  Bristol is fortunate it does not carry the burden of Stockton's pension liabilities.  Those liabilities were once estimated at totaling more than $1.5 billion or $245 million dollars over the course of a decade.  But let's look at the other largest debts that helped sink the city during it's quest for progressive sustainable development during the housing crisis.

STOCKTON

 On August 23,2011, the City of Stockton, CA assumed it's former Redevelopment Agency's housing function responsibilities as required by law.  The City had existing BRT (Bus-Rapid Transit)-like service and was looking to expand it's service and spur development in the process.  It's 2007-2035 plan is a progressive long-term future development/climate action plan focused on things like Transit-Oriented, high-density housing development, preservation of historic and cultural resources, and doubling the number of residents commuting by bicycle by the year 2021.

Driven by residential development, Stockton's population grew over 24% from 2000-2014 to approximately 300,000 residents.  Stockton carried $435.5 million in total bond indebtedness according to it's 2014-2015 Comprehensive Annual Finance Report (CAFR).  This includes $31 million in Parking Garage Debt.  The report also states it held $649,863,743 in total pension liabilities.  The financial status the city found itself in was attributed due to two major factors.  One was that it's pension liabilities became unsustainable during economic decline.  Another was it's substantial loss in property tax revenues as the city's unemployment grew to nearly 24%. One statement in the CAFR stands out:

"Stockton continues to lag in its recovery as compared to other nearby regions of Northern California, partially due to the large number of houses that remain vacant. The median home prices fell from a peak of $400,000 in December 2005 to $118,500 in February 2012, a decline of 70%"

After rapid residential growth and subsequent economic downturn, the City of Stockton was the largest City on the history of the US to go bankrupt when it filed for chapter 9 in 2012.  City Hall and it's parking garages were seized by Wells Fargo in June of that year.

BRISTOL

Bristol's population decreased by hundreds from 2010-2015 is stands at about 60,000 residents.  Bristol's total bond indebtedness went down $6.9 million to $67.6 million according to it's 2014-2015 CAFR .   The report also states that The City of Bristol has $198,811,928 in total pension liabilities. Property taxes increased by 21% during this period to $134,240,052.  


 Until just recently, the City of Bristol's website stated:

"A city which develops a viable urban housing core with transportation links will likely be viable in the 21st century and beyond."

  During recent election debates, Democratic Party candidates for Bristol expressed their support for utilizing state monies for housing to build out along the Fastrak station in downtown Bristol.  One of those candidates won the office for the state's Representative 79th district.  Another local democrat mentioned the use of state monies for housing in Bristol to stimulate growth in a recent radio interview on Bristol's State of the City show on The Beat.   We also heard Bristol's mayor answer a question about whether or not Bristol's downtown would feature a Renaissance Downtowns' type of development with, "It could".   Nowhere have I found any evidence that the city has changed direction.

A quick review of the city's Plan of Development certainly supports this hypotheses, yet some people seem to be in a state of denial.  This plan to implement sustainable development practices into the downtown's redevelopment originated some time ago.  There has been no indication that the city is not continuing it's course as it envelops it's focus on it's decades old plan with the building slated to promote cultural arts.  The push for housing and the incorporation of transportation and cultural arts are the foundations of sustainable development objectives and among the primary focus of it's orchestrators.  The plans can also be traced back to Renaissance Downtowns' 2011 concept plan and many publications relating it to the future of Bristol including those from the regional Chamber of Commerce.  Some influential members of the community have favored the plan, some  have not.  Beyond the Chamber, it's tie to regional planning is not a secret.

Sustainable development practices in Bristol are illustrated as relevant to the State's Conservation and Development plan on the City of Bristol's website.  Therein it describes the conservation of historic resources.  This illustrates the relation of the building and it's preservation as a cultural asset to the downtown development.

click for doc

In recent history we have watched the estimates for the theater climb to twice the cost of the $6 million originally proposed.  Now we have a building that is going to cost taxpayers more than $36 million.  Of course, we are to believe that the allocation is necessary as the building now housing City Hall allegedly needs $20 million dollars worth of renovations.

The draft proposal calls for the provision for an employee gym in the new city hall.  The cost of the gym is not included in the $20 million dollar cost estimate.

I wonder how many municipalities in the State of Connecticut have employee gyms on the premises.

The Memorial Boulevard is also slated to be a gateway to the city with one lane dedicated to automobile traffic and the other dedicated to bicycle traffic.  This is a typical element of sustainable development practices and an integral aspect of the city's plan to implement a system of bicycle routes in downtown Bristol in accordance with the state's Complete Streets Policies.  These policies are designed "to develop a transportation system for sustainable and liveable communities" according to their website.  This application of however in conflict with some elements of the City of Bristol's Plan of Development that suggest traffic flow improvements in the city's major transportation corridors.

 In some planning circles, the constriction of road traffic is used as an incentive to get people out of their cars and onto public transit, bicycles and on foot.  In fact, the practice is encouraged in a book cited by former City Planner Alan Weiner on many occasions, called The High Cost of Free Parking.   The American Planning Association publication written by Robert Shoup suggests urban planners heed the warning of Lewis Mumsford:

"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar, in an age where everyone possesses such a vehicle, is actually the right to destroy the city."

More on that another time-


  Minutes to the November 15th Real Estate Committee workshop indicate that the Memorial Boulevard building could have been kept as a school for approximately $970,000 annually.  A bicycle lane near a neighborhood school makes for a practical application for the use of taxpayer money.  Could it be perhaps that members of Bristol's government plan to ride their bicycles to work under the current proposal?

I became aware at a recent meeting of the Bristol Development Authority that the City of Bristol is looking at a Working Cities Challenge grant for assisting in such development in downtown Bristol.    Does this scene from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston website about the grant program look familiar?

What is the Working Cities Challenge Grant?
PSC Housing, a nonprofit whom is working with regional planners, the legislature and municipal leaders on sustainable development in the State of Connecticut states on their website:

"What is the Working Cities Challenge?
The Working Cities Challenge (WCC), launched in 2013, builds cross-sector collaboration to solve issues impacting the lives of these cities’ lower-income residents. Grounded in Boston Fed research, the WCC encourages leaders from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors to advance proposals that tackle complex challenges facing smaller post-industrial cities and achieve large scale impact across communities."

Happy Holidays and Merry Grantmas!

Mike Nicastro and Dannel Malloy's Housing/Public-Transit Agenda

   Mike Nicastro is running for Connecticut's 31st District State Senatorial seat.  He is quoted saying that the State of CT has an income problem.  He proposes highway tolls that would be paid only by out-of-state travelers to close the budget gap.  I was unable to find any examples of where such a thing exists nor can I believe that the State of CT would establish a toll system and not collect monies from it's own residents.  Proposals promoting tolls as a way to fund regional transportation projects were introduced at Malloy's Transportation forums in 2014. 


 Mike gained attention speaking out against the busway in favor of light rail passenger service, declaring it the cheaper alternative by incorrectly equating the costs of the project to that of the Amtrak Downeaster.  Officials at URS at the CT Rail Study meeting I attended in 2013 called it the most expensive option.  As a preliminary stakeholder of the million dollar plus rail study he advocated for, he must know that passenger rail from Waterbury to Bristol turned out to be the most costly. 

The creation of passenger rail service involved an overhaul of 25 miles of the Pan Am line from Berlin to Waterbury including trains and equipment that would serve 800 or less customers at a cost of over $530 million dollars.  This equals more than $662,000 per person. That's enough money to buy each of them all a new home near their workplace and more than a dozen electric cars.

Busway service expansion from Bristol to Waterbury would cost a mere $5-$10 million.  The Central CT Rail Study report presentation on June 6th, 2016 meeting at the Bristol Public Library (to which the public was largely uninformed of) illustrates that passenger rail service isn't feasible at this time. 
Did Mike really care about the cost?

   As president of Central CT Chamber of Commerce,  Nicastro launched the slogan, "One Region , One Voice".  calling Bristol a "hub" of the region and wrote numerous articles citing the importance of public transportation in the future of downtown Bristol.  He called for the resignation of the chairwoman of  Bristol's Downtown Development Corporation for hesitating from signing on with Renaissance Downtowns plan to add thousands of units of housing near public transportation in downtown Bristol without any concrete financial plan nor concrete experience in 2009 and was quoted in the press stating,  “The lack of housing is why we don’t have a vibrant downtown.”  in 2011. 

 I've experienced a few interactions with this man whom has a robust knowledge about the state's goals for regional development projects.  Instead of walking away from the discourse with a better understanding of these goals as I had hoped, I found myself a target by more than a few stakeholders of the downtown Bristol Centre Square plan appraised at negative $33 million dollars.  

Way to derail conversations!

  It appears as though the point of most of the statements addressed to me were to imply that my concerns were based upon a conspiracy theory.  Was Mike making an effort to convince others there is nothing to be concerned about?

The risks of new urbanism projects are plenty.  Even experts in the industry such as Donald Shoup admit that you can sometimes exasperate the problems that the goals New Urbanism seeks to remedy using such a urban renewal recipe.  But instead of allowing the residents of Bristol to have an educated conversation of the risks, trade-offs, and goals of a TOD (Transit-Oriented Development) project as Reconnecting America advises as best practices, this man declared that the downtown project was not about transportation.   "Agenda 21 has no place in the conversation about downtown", he wrote.  Then this same man brought it up over and over.

    Mike continually labeled anyone vocally concerned as anti-downtown development, anti-investment, negative and accused some of them of not offering of other alternatives.  Yet in all actuality, of the few people that were vocal about their reservations, none fit the profile he concocted.  Some people took to the microphone at public meetings and wrote in to the paper in their own defense but Mike did not stop with the public branding.  

Criticism of these policies should elicit a professional explanation of their merits and not false accusations and ad hominem attacks on private citizens if we are to have an open society. 

  Most astounding to me was his assertion that Depot Square "is not about transportation" in spite of dozens of documents and statements proving otherwise. Pointing out the most recent minutes of the Rail Study  to validate my claims, Mike simply deflected that the CCRPA was now defunct.  The very same minutes were mirrored on the rail study site.  I posted them, was blocked from the social network group and the post was deleted.  This appears to be how he deals with people whom ask questions. 

 Mike's name appears on the Central CT CEDS (Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy), which is a long-term economic development plan that regionally addresses demographics, employment, housing and transportation. So I was alarmed to hear him downplay the expanding role of regionalization in the state by identifying it as a cost sharing thing between municipalities at a recent debate.  It is remarkable that Mike's has such experience with how state grant monies and land use planning are intricately connected and he has not made mention of it here either.

  This is particularly disturbing because Nicastro condemned Senator Martin for not supporting Senate Bill 1, the  first bill introduced this year by state democrat party leader Looney, Duff and Fonfara.  The part of the bill that is linked to the heart of the Nicastro campaign is the creation of "Innovation Districts" with entrepreneurial start-up assistance.  This original legislation was defeated and the subsidiary of the public-private entity Connecticut Innovations called "ImpaCT" never came to be.  Nicastro said he testified in favor of the bill and helped work to change the draft of this legislation.  Mike's campaign would like you to think that Mike is being independently innovative about job creation.   That's quite a play on words. 

 After the close of the legislative session, the democrat led state legislature drafted the biennium budget bill and stuffed the CTNext "Innovation" program in it.  The program is is virtually the same.  The bill states,   

"In determining whether to approve an application for innovation place designation, the CTNext board shall consider... the commitment to, implement and administer the master plan...whether such plan includes ...sufficient measures to ensure walkability of the geographic areas within the municipality.... adequate and accessible public transportation; and .... affordable housing options..."

  Initiatives like these pick the winners and losers at the expense of the middle class.  This agenda is the same one you see playing out in Hartford, West Haven, Newington and every town and city in a transit corridor or a future planned transportation corridor.   That agenda is about public transportation, affordable housing and reducing carbon emissions from personal automobiles to combat global warming, as much as it is about jobs.  One could argue that it is the primary focus but we'll just leave it up to the reader to decide.

Official Testimony against SB1

Is It Government, Not Citizens, Guiding Bristol's Future at Public Workshops?

On June 18th 2016,  the City of Bristol held a public workshop at the Tunxis of Bristol location to solicit public input for the Route 6 Corridor Planning Study.  Despite the discussions at public meetings, a local story about the meeting, and the promotion of it by at least one city official and myself, the turnout was quite dismal.

 The fact that the majority of those in attendance were either members of the Planning Commission or otherwise some other form of government official was discussed during the meeting.  So I when I saw this quote in a local publication it stuck out like a sore thumb.  I was not the first, nor the only one who noticed.  In addition to what seems like a plug for the city's branding effort, the quote would seem to imply that there was a large amount of public input from the general citizenry gathered.  I am not the only person whom feels this is not the case. 

The people in the photo below are all either members of government or associated parties save for two or three.  One is a member of consultant company commissioned for the Route 6 Corridor Study and one for consultation for downtown Bristol redevelopment, one is a city councilor, two are former Chamber of Commerce Presidents (one of which is running for State Senator), about a half dozen are members of the City of Bristol Planning Commission.... well, I l could go on but am sure you get the point.

  The charrette leading the meeting had hoped to break us into smaller groups so as to have smaller conversations and lead us through to achieve a particular objective as all charrettes do. I was however  not convinced that was a good way to solicit public input under these circumstances so therefore I objected.   I was not the only one to object either.   Even Councilwoman Mary Fortier agreed that pubic attendance was minimal stating that only six private residents were in attendance (as you can see for yourself at this link  in a short video clip.)

 In the end there was a consensus that there would be an open public discourse and we moved on together.   Discussion covered various areas in the corridor, the pros, cons and suggestions for those areas.  All members of the public all were allowed to discuss their views in part, but some were not pleased with the turn of events.  As one member of the public in attendance described it.

" When the question was asked can we move from development to the traffic issues we were shut down. The consultant also twisted the statistics - 20% of the residents have lived in the area since 1969 - and are aging out. But no one mentioned the other 80% who are younger! Very frustrating meeting."

The meeting actually ended at around 11 a.m.- An hour prior to the scheduled end.

  Some members of the city's boards, commissions and associations provided comments at the public meeting in support of certain initiatives that do not appear to be held on a level of high importance with the general public.  Perhaps the municipal meeting held prior to the public one was a different format or perhaps some of those speaking were unable to attend the other meeting.  That is not to imply that when members of the community become government officials, that they cease to be citizens of the community.

  Nevertheless, no reasonable person can deny that the city's planning workshops are lacking in attendance of members of the general public.  In this instance, the government is basically soliciting input from the government themselves in the public's stead.  This is not a good way to have proper representative government, nor see future development guided by the citizens themselves.    I hope that this problem does not reoccur when planners for Bristol's downtown solicit public input or else we could possibly see the city head in a direction that most residents won't enjoy to go.  It could happen, and has happened in other communities.

   I've included images of the 'information gathering technique' charts dotted with the concerns of those in attendance.   It seems that most are concerned with traffic flow despite the fact that the study itself focused predominantly on development.  I wonder if traffic concerns will be used as a reason to concentrate housing and development in a place where most residents do not want to see it occur.  

There was NO support for apartments in the downtown gateway section of Rte 6. 

  Most of the workshops I have attended have been predominantly attended by municipal representatives and 'interested parties'.    Hopefully we will see more members of the general public in attendance in the future.  I created an event on Facebook for this workshop but few of the members of government I invited shared the event.   The reason why they do not create a Facebook Event and invite all of the city on their own escapes me.  City officials could also target Facebook ads to local residents informing them of the workshops for a small amount of money as suggested by one local resident.   I have recently brought this suggestion to the Bristol Development Authority Downtown Committee in hopes they would incorporate it to their public outreach plan.  Whether or not it it will make any difference ultimately depends on the effort of the general public and the effort of their municipality to reach them. 

  Some residents have asserted that they feel that the city would prefer to limit public involvement as these readily available tools to encourage attendance of such meetings are not being utilized.  Some have concluded that all some are seeking is manufactured consent and have pointed to the article as an indicator of such.   Do you feel that city officials are making every effort to reach the public and garner their attendance?  Do you feel that the article from the local paper implies that there are sufficient outreach efforts and results for such important decisions about the city's future?


(Video Courtesy of the Bristol, CT Open Government Project)

Who Wants Bike Paths Downtown?

Is there any harshness in living without an automobile or is it a modern-day utopia? Are we perhaps living in the land of contraries?  Either way, the City of Bristol is moving forward with it's agenda of providing a system of bicycle routes, beginning in the most controversial location possible.  As proposed, the Veterans Memorial Boulevard will become a gateway to the city by cutting off one lane of vehicular traffic.

We are told that this idea originated locally from our Park Board, Veterans Board and the Bristol Police Department.  And who is the average Joe to complain?  We the citizens are given a variety of reasons why we should shut up and deal with it.  We are told by some that since the veterans sacrificed their lives for our country and they are okay with it..."  and we are told that "the police department is in charge of traffic", and that., "the experts whom did the traffic study know what is best."    We are also told that, "It was at the Park Commission city meeting and if you didn't go you have no right to complain."  Yet even though the issue did not make print, nor was it mentioned anywhere prior to it being approved, this is the narrative.  One other half truth floating around is that the Memorial Boulevard closes into one lane at each end when in fact it breaks down to three lanes at the west end.   Nevertheless, I heard a rumor  that there is going to be a new city meeting about it on the 20th to allow the public to participate in the process, but I can't seem to locate any information about it on the city website, in the local paper, nor the mayor's Facebook page.  Is this a coincidence or a pattern?

If you believe the "official story" being put forth you must not have seen anything that precedes this local processes as of late. So where did the bicycle lane idea come from?   Let's have a look back in time and you can decide for yourself where this idea originates.

The City of Bristol conducted a survey of it's residents as part of it's Plan of Conservation and Development.   In this instance, according to the contracted firm's representative, what kind of bicycle path would be suggested was not explained.  Survey participants were simply asked with the leading questions below.   Would you suppose that the person at the end of the telephone was suggesting closing one lane of Memorial Boulevard?

So here it is, bicycle paths in Bristol's PoCD (Plan of Conservation and Development) which was approved in June of 2015.  It appears that this happened more than seven months months before the Park Board had it on their agenda


Bicycle circulation pathways are mentioned several times in the 2015-2025 PoCD for Bristol.

The Plan of Development also suggests that the city "reduce city street widths", which could prove costly should high snowfall totals accumulate over the course of the winter in these areas.We even see the suggestion of painting bicycle lanes in the PoCD as well as the establishment of a network of bicycle routes. The planning commission included a map of suitable locations for the network in the Plan. 

I had not noticed earlier but the route from the Planning Commission PoCD map places the route along Riverside Avenue and not on Memorial Boulevard.  The safety of that route appears to be questionable.  Perhaps the city's Park Commission facilitated the change from state guidelines which appear to suggest the pathways follow state highways.   Riverside Avenue is the roadway that is designated as Route 72 despite the awkwardness of the detour from a straighter path.

One would think that a roadway described as a "Gateway to Bristol" would have a planned two-lane road for automobiles if the goal were to improve traffic flow and improve commercial activity.   But the course that the city is on will close one lane and make the gateway a "bicyclist's utopia" as initiated by planners, developers and big government.   The DOT has been working on a statewide plan for bicycles for quite some time.  In 2009 they adopted a plan that identifies Bristol's lack of inventory of such a system of bicycle routes and the city's PoCD identifies this while addressing the survey results.  

This is all connected to the New Urbanist "walkability" concept, where bicycle racks become a primary concern over the creation of jobs that would allow residents to live self-sustaining lives without having to forfeit their personal transportation.



The PoCD tells a different tale than the local paper and some of our local politicians and their political allies.     Bristol does not live in a bubble where state and federal policy does not influence decision making.   The City of Bristol's Master Plan calls for integrated planning and undertaking of actions to "improve public transit options".

Complete Streets is mentioned in this segment of the PoCD as well as the federally funded nonprofit, "SmartgrowthAmerica".  SmartgrowthAmerica and the National Complete Streets Coalition have teamed up to address climate change by making efforts to reduce carbon emissions, according to their website.

    

The policy shares the same goals as the CTFastrak Bus-Rapid Transit program.     The adoption of Complete Streets law dates back to 2009 and is modeled for incorporation to TOD projects such as the CTFastrak oriented plan for Bristol's downtown.


The State of Connecticut Department of Transportation Complete Streets Report states that,

"motor vehicle users have been the prime consideration for designers.   This has created a motorized vehicle dependent society."  

Do you think that rings true?

Either way, the Master Plan for New Britain's Fastrak-Oriented development appears not on their city website, but on the Capitol Region Council of Government's website.  Unlike in the local press, the incorporation of the practice was widely publicized prior to implementation.

Another thing that Bristol shared with New Britain besides it's transportation planning is the fact that relevant planning documents appear on state websites instead of the city's.   The PoCD mentions the Forestville Plan, which appears on the Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agency (CCRPA)  website.   The CCRPA includes the plans of the bicycle routes in it's 2012 report.

Also mentioned in the CCRPA 2012 Report is fact that the CCRPA worked with Renaissance Downtowns providing the traffic counts and took part in the development of bicycle routes..   Their 2011 Concept plan illustrates the fact that the effort began long ago under a premise that is now being buried.

  The CCRPA is now a defunct but the Bristol's Metropolitan Planning Organization is the CCMPO, whose involvement is illustrated on the Capitol Region Council of Governments website..    You might be able to influence the outcome of this development, but it.appears unlikely to me.

But don't take my word for it.   Listen to Bristol's Transportation Committee official explain it to local Democrat councilors eager to connect the trail to Plainville at a city meeting.

Free Sidewalks for Low-Income Landlords? - CDBG Money in Bristol, CT

According to federal mandates, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) monies must be used to predominantly benefit low-income and moderate income families.  But do these federally allocated HUD monies earmarked for such use achieve the goals they are intended to produce? Or could it be that these taxpayer monies might possibly be benefiting less needy individuals?   This is the case made by more than one local resident.

This year, the City of Bristol has decided to once again amend it's Annual Action Plan, by reprogramming CDBG funds for sidewalk replacement.  $68,000 in federal funds are proposed to be used for sidewalk replacement in the Summer Street Target Area.   Upon inspection of the Summer Street vicinity, it appears that the area most in need of sidewalk repair happens to be in the area closest to the city's main library.    A short animation shows that the sidewalks are in a clear state of disrepair.



Some planners and state officials, including those from nonprofits such as the Local Initiative Support Corporation (LISC), (whom is managing the State of Connecticut's Transit-Oriented Development Predevelopment Fund), seem to think that sidewalks improve the quality of life of low-income residents because physical mobility lowers the walker's Body Mass Index (BMI).   It seems like that's a bit of a stretch of legitimate use.  The question at hand is, do these funds best fit the bill for their intended use, or do they more greatly benefit those that the funds are NOT targeted for.   City resident and taxpayer Tom Doyle Jr. isn't the only resident whom thinks this is an issue.   He is one of the few whom has provided a public statement for the Bristol Development's public hearing for the funds' use.   It states in part,

" I'm a moderate-income taxpayer living in this neighborhood.  I know that most of these buildings are apartments owned by landlords that don't actually live there.  They're responsible for these properties and must pay for sidewalk replacement, by law.  You're not helping low- and moderate-income families with this proposal -- you're actually hurting them.  You're rewarding the absentee landlords who these poor families pay their rent to, the ones that use that money to do anything but repair and maintain their blighted buildings and properties. ....
...The fact is, it may not even be legal to use this money to redo the sidewalks.  The city ordinances specifically state that sidewalks must be maintained, repaired, replaced, and kept clear by the property owner and not at the expense of the taxpayers."

 I met him for a quick "On the Street" video a few weeks back.   


Among other residents opposed to the use of low-income funds for landlords was the former teacher and father of Tom Jr., Tom Doyle Sr.   His statement to the BDA (in part), is included below,

"The city has proposed that $68,000 be taken from community block grants to repair sidewalks on Summer St.  We citizens are getting a snow-job.  Sidewalks are the responsibility of owners - in this case some absentee landlords including one who has been called a scumbag by our Mayor....
...    The sidewalks wouldn't need to be repaired if dumpsters were kept off them, if cars did not park on them, if driveways were simply paved.  Otherwise landlords create problems and the taxpayers are forced to pay for them...."

Bristol's Historic District Commissioner and Federal Hill resident Steve Coan weighed in,

"This particular area of the city seems to be one of those areas where the city's code has not been properly enforced.   Summer Street has been a haven for slum lords for years and the idea that we are now going to reward this behavior by giving them new free sidewalks is absurd. "

One property owner at a popular downtown business found the practice unfair to long-time taxpaying residents.  He recently dished out more than $7,000 to replace the sidewalks in front of his vibrant new $15,000 awning.   The investment was privately funded.  Ineligible for the city's Enterprise Zone incentives, this business owner is paying more than his fair share for businesses investing just across the other side of the railroad tracks.

If the purpose of using taxpayer monies for sidewalks in downtown Bristol is to improve it's 'walkability', the money is not likely being best used to predominantly benefit low to moderate income families.   The Central Connecticut Metropolitan Planning Organization's Transportation Plan for Central Connecticut -2040 illustrates that Bristol is 'very walkable'.  It seems that HUD funds are being directed to the same place that roadway monies are being diverted to in this manner.

The public hearing for the amendment has ended effectively on the 18th of January.   The Bristol Development Authority will address the public comments for the sidewalk allocation of federal Housing and Urban Development(HUD) monies at it's Monday January 25th meeting at 5:00 PM immediately after the public comment segment of the meeting.