In yet another effort to transform visions into reality, the City of Bristol has sought the "unbiased" advice of a high-powered firm that endorses smartgrowth principles and suggests it will solicit the input of local residents regarding the development of their downtown. Although I am not a fan of the regional smartgrowth approach to downtown redevelopment in suburban towns, I applaud their efforts to "seek as much public input as possible" and eagerly await their invitation to do so. Perhaps this would be best sought by endorsing a referendum and publicly speaking with any and all groups interested in this endeavor. I hope that their personal feelings about smartgrowth principles do not cloud their financial judgement of the project's economic sustainability aspects. Triple Bottom Line" (TBL) principles advocate for three equal factors of consideration in development. These considerations are commonly referred to as "people", "profit" and "planet" or as "social", "environmental" and "financial" pillars. In transit oriented development projects, the approach suggests that the social benefits and environmentally positive impacts of expanding transportation options are equally as important as the economic viability of the project. Some advocates of this approach insist that a TBL standard allows one of the three categories to be lacking if they can justify the necessity of the benefits of the other two. One can only imagine what kind of financial advice taxpayers can expect in this circumstance. It's interesting to note that the document is dated May 23rd and there has yet to be any public outreach. Is one to think that it will ever happen? Upon reading the document, it seems more apparent that the city intends to continue down it's current path as it would appear they are looking for documented support rather than unbiased advice. This however is not the sole indicator of the direction the City of Bristol is taking. The most significant document indicating intent of redevelopment action is the City of Bristol's <a href="2013-2014 Annual Action Plan" Therein it is outlined in the same manner as the City of Bristol's resolution to use the CT City and Town Redevelopment Act
"IIIa. Neighborhood Target Area: West End:
To provide for Decent Housing and Suitable Living Environments
IIIb. Public Housing Modernization: To provide for Decent Housing
IV. Public Facilities: To provide for Suitable Living Environments
V. Economic Development, including Commercial Rehab. To provide Economic Opportunities.
The Action Plan will provide most services on a city-wide basis and not to a particular geographic location. However, a Target Area was identified in the 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan which was developed in consultation and with the assistance of the Bristol Housing Authority, the Bristol Continuum of Care, the United Way and an array of community agencies that provide services to low/moderate income individuals and families and to the public in general. The Target Area, called the West End Neighborhood, organized a neighborhood association (WEA) which started meeting in fall 2011.... Even though there was inadequate federal funding in Year 38 for the Target Area, BDA developed a working relationship with the WEA. This relationship will continue whether or not CDBG funds are cut further. The Action Plan for Year 39 was approved by the Policy Committee of the BDA and the BDA Board at its April 22, 2013 meeting. The Bristol City Council approved the Plan on May 14, 2013. The Action Plan will be administered by the Bristol Development Authority (BDA) that is governed by a bi-partisan nine member Board of Commissioners. The Board is responsible for general oversight of the program and for developing funding recommendations. The BDA will work with the Bristol Housing Authority on projects that involve housing development and rehabilitation. The Housing Authority will supply affordable housing units to income eligible residents using Section 8 and CIAP funds."
At the public hearing on July 30th, some city officials insisted that the solicitation of funding from the CT Town and City Redevelopment Act was unrelated to the Depot Square Project. Considering the existence of two separate ballot question proposals, one for the Redevelopment Act and one specifically for Depot Square, with the latter only endorsed by a minority of council members, I'm not so sure.
Conspiracies vs. Theories
Facts do not stop officials from pressing on with this affair against the will of taxpayers nor from hiding the details. In fact, a flurry of hit pieces and personal attacks have flown from the mouthpieces of special interests groups regarding the very same controversial topic across the country. One might say that there is a "conspiracy theory" that "people angered by their city's downtown development shenanigans do so because they have a conspiratorial mindset". So much for logic and reason! At any rate, it remains unclear exactly who these local remarks were addressed to. To the best of my knowledge,
Please refer to the requirements for use of Connecticut's Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funding to which Bristol's downtown project funding is intricately tied to. It reads as follows:
"strategies should be designed to influence trip-making behavior...Constructing bicycle and pedestrian facilities (paths, bike racks, support facilities,etc.) that are not exclusively recreational and reduce vehicle trips...Public education and outreach can help communities reduce emissions and congestion by inducing drivers to change their transportation choices."This plainly states the purpose of the program. The facts also show that the transportation aspect of the project will not provide a financial return on investment and that they are designed to encourage the use of public transportation at the expense of the newly created class of "working poor". CMAQ funding comes the Federal Highway Administration MAP-21 which come from tax revenues. With increasing excessive taxation, a lowering median income combined with escalating costs of living due to the inflationary effects of the federal reserve's quantitative easing programs, pinched taxpayers will find the affordability of automobiles much more difficult. I would classify the effect as more of an unintended consequence than a conspiracy. Others view is as punitive coercion. Either way, the facts remain facts. Take it from the horse's mouth:
"If you take carbon based automobiles and trucks off the road, you can get CMAQ money." Mike Nicastro
The busway, downtown, and the state's CMAQ program.(start around 8:50)
Remarkably, the former Central Connecticut Chamber of Commerce president (who reportedly pressured the local paper to close their blog section) claims in his article that "Agenda 21" (a non-binding resolution passed by the US Congress back in 1992) is "bunk", while Renaissance Downtowns' website (click here to view entire page) refers to it as follows:
Agenda 21 is a set of guidelines produced by the United Nations in 1992, and Renaissance has no affiliation with Agenda 21. Renaissance Downtowns is a privately-financed company investing in downtown areas based on market demand, and simply believes that developing in downtowns provides a choice for consumers to help meet that market demand. Renaissance believes strongly in a locally-based, community driven process that takes into account what residents and stakeholders would like to see built within their downtown area, allowing the free market and local preferences to dictate what is developed within these downtowns. In addition, Renaissance’s efforts are funded by the Company itself, not the municipality, allowing the private sector to do what it does best – spur economic development and job creation for the communities in which Renaissance works. Renaissance abides by a triple-bottom-line philosophy for development based upon social, environmental and economic responsibility that are based on growing market demand and local preferences, not Agenda. 21."
In response to reading this, I feel compelled to ask,
"Is the state and city letting the free market and local preferences decide what to build in our downtown"?
At any rate, the issue is not what role that any United Nations urban planning recommendations plays in our downtown but what role the taxpayer plays. Many feel that role has been diminished and justly so due to actions of late. Whatever you call it, it is not what our government is constitutionally obligated to provide.
A Few Facts and Statistics Regarding Urban Crime and Transit
According to FBI crime statistics, there are no suburbs in the country with a higher murder rate than their associated central city. For example:* In 2002, Los Angeles' violent crime rate of 1,349 per 100,000 was more than dooulbe of that of the Riverside-San Bernadino metro area, considered
the nation's most sprawling area by Smart Growth America.
* Portland's violent and property crime rates of 828 and 7,127 per 100,000, respectively, were much higher than sprawling Raleigh-Durham, NC with rates of 455 and 4,416.
* Seattle's violent and property crimes rates of 705 and 7,298 per 100,000 residents outpaced sprawling Denver's rates of 534 and 4,994.
(Source: National Center For Policy Analysis)
* Father Panick Village , Bridgeport, CT. Five decades after relocating the regions poor from sprawling three family houses to an urban center complex, the area has become among the highest crime rates in Connecticut.
As reported in the Connecticut Policy Institute report, Connecticut's urban crime rates exceed most other states in the country. This is not pessimism folks, it's fact:
"The last two decades have witnessed a dramatic drop in urban crime in the United States.
Since 1990 U.S. violent crime has fallen by 32% overall and by 64% in large cities. Unfortunately, in three of Connecticut’s five cities, crime rates have remained stubbornly high. As of November 2013, New Haven, Hartford, and Bridgeport constituted three of the country’s six most dangerous cities with population under 200,000, according to FBI data. And as the chart below shows, Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven all have violent crime rates substantially higher than rates in similar cities elsewhere in New England."
Have a look at the top of the list of factors that the FBI considers relevant to crime rates straight from the website of the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management:
 |
| (Click here to View Webpage) |
Transit Oriented Development & Low-income Housing Mandates
According to a recent press report:"Housing policy experts see mixed-income housing as an alternative to concentrating low-income individuals and families into one building or one complex. The model is also being considered as an alternative to Section 8 housing vouchers that travel with the tenant. By dispersing small numbers of low-income families into market rate housing, the belief is that the low-income families will benefit from some of the same networking resources, and adapt the same behaviors as the market-rate tenants.On a recent trip to Bristol's downtown, Richard Blumenthal stated that:
.....Low-interest loans from Connecticut Housing Financing Authority help lock in the financing. In Connecticut, Stamford, Norwalk, South Norwalk, Fairfield and Bridgeport have developments around their train stations. While New Haven County has been slow to embrace the concept, there are developments in Bristol and New London, and some existing property owners are designating units as affordable, said CHFA spokeswoman Lisa Kidder." (read here)
" the city could be eligible for federal community block grant funds or other U.S. Department of Housing funding that could be used to forge a public-private partnership with the Renaissance Downtowns developer, whose proposal for a large mixed-used development at the vacant 17-acre Depot Square property has faltered."
Click here to visit's HUD's Climate Adaption Plan
As stated on the internet on HUD's page,
"not less than 70 percent of CDBG funds must be used for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons."And in addition, HUD is now mandated to promote and include sustainable development in their programs.
From their websites:
"On October 5, 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order (EO) 13514, "Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance", which establishes numerous "green" requirements for the Federal Government. E.O. 13514 requires federal agencies to establish greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets; increase energy efficiency; reduce fleet petroleum consumption; conserve water; reduce waste; support sustainable communities; and leverage Federal purchasing power to promote environmentally-responsible products and technologies."
"Climate change adaptation planning relates to both HUD’s mission statement and to HUD’s strategic plan. HUD’s mission is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality, affordable homes for all. HUD’s strategic plan emphasizes its role in building sustainable communities and in promoting energy-efficient buildings and location-efficient communities, as well as its role in facilitating disaster preparedness."
The relationship between HUD funding, smartgrowth (aka sustainable development) projects and Bristol's plans are as follows. The six livability principles mandated for eligibility for sustainable communities planning grants are the same as the six "Smart Growth" principles required in the draft of Bristol's Plan of Conservation and Development as now required by the 2013-2018 Connecticut Conservation and Development Policies Plan Update. State laws, regional policies and required mandates require stipulations be met before funding is provided on the municipal level. This is what is holding up the development in Bristol. Community gardens and bicycle lanes are just a piece of the puzzle being assembled.
State Law and City Ordinance Changes
A significant increase in the role of Connecticut's newly redrawn Councils of Governments will provide priority funding to projects meeting the three aspects of criteria. The essence of the changes are of significant impact to the redevelopment of downtown Bristol.
 |
| PA 13-247 |
 |
| ( Click here to read the full story) |
These projects have and will include subsidies for transportation and housing packaged together with economic development funds. You can't have one without the other and this very measure has stirred much controversy in nearby Plymouth, CT where it narrowly passed adoption.
On Wednesday August 13th,
the Bristol city council voted on a resolution to change the city's ordinance to empower the city to participate in these regional projects by joining the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley. |
| (Click here to view the report) |
Regardless of what city officials may say, as a member of the Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agency, the regional planners have worked intricately on the details on the Depot Square Project in Bristol. As I have detailed, the project is a regional project that includes the transportation, housing and economic development planning and collaboration of the regional authorities. To be eligible for state funding there are guidelines that must be met.
 |
| Click here to visit the COGCNV website |
Now as our state laws and policies are changing radically, one can only imagine the consequences. It would appear that Bristol residents are feeling the effects of the changes already. Were it not so, then why are answers impossible to come by? (View the city's document here in the city's Agenda Center.)
No comments:
Post a Comment