Have you heard in the local paper about the Route 6 Corridor Study? The story mentions a few aspects of the study recommendations from the commissioned firm Fitzgerald and Halliday. It mentions that the study draft recommendations include recommendations to make Route 6 more "walkable". I'm not sure the study was necessary to reach that conclusion as one can clearly see that some of the major intersections lack proper crosswalks as well as functional crossing signals. But as our former city planner Alan Weiner once stated, the study IS NOT about traffic but instead about DEVELOPMENT along this corridor. Specifically, the Draft Recommendations of the plan refers to walkability as to, "Encourage compact, mixeduse,
and walkable
commercial centers/clusters."
Not surprisingly, this plan for Route 6 appears to have been coordinated with some regional transportation planning. The study map seems to indicate that there are three new proposed bus shelters and a pull-off within a quarter mile of the city's methadone clinic. So it is not surprising to see that the city study suggests to "encourage compact, mixed-use clusters" near these transit stops.
This is completely in line with the state's growth principles to, "Expand Housing Opportunities, Concentrate Development Around Transportation Nodes and Corridors and Promote Integrated Planning Across All Levels of Government on a Statewide, Regional and Local Basis." Increasing density in such areas provide investors the opportunity to cash-in on the growing land value and density bonuses. It also is supposed to spur an increase transit ridership. That's exactly what such a proposal is tailored for.
If you take a look at the corridor study, it suggests two proposals. One would allow the development of six-family mixed-use buildings in areas that are currently occupied predominantly by single-family homes through a Special Permit process. The other would allow it as by-right development, without a special permit by creating an overlay zone across the corridor. The "TMU Zone", which the study identifies as Mixed-Use Transitional Zone, also proposes relief from parking-minimum requirements for such units. Much like most new Transit-Oriented Development proposals, the TUM Zone would allow people to erect buildings beyond the current standard building height and density. Relief from current parking minimums, or the creation of a regulation LIMITING the number of allowable parking is also included in the proposal. This is certainly not a regulation that would accommodate those traveling to these properties by automobile. There are several reason for such considerations but it's important to note that the primary one is the idea that affordability and accessibility to public transit will decrease such demands. I can think of at least one case in downtown Bristol where that did not pan out according to plan.
Unfortunately it looks as though some decisions may have been made prior to the commencement of the solicitation of public opinion. There is currently a Statewide Bus Study Workshop that does not conclude until January 20th and those soliciting public input for the State of Connecticut's Plan of Conservation and Development have not yet begun to do so. As a citizen whom has likely expressed more interest in both the planning and transportation processes than most local residents, I was dismayed to discover that the most recent public outreach efforts from the state regarding transportation planning was not announced to the residents-at-large until the day of the event. When this is couple this with the lack of ease of accessibility to the City of Bristol's Transportation Committee meeting times and you have one large pile of frustration about the lack of information that would encourage public participation. Such participation is not merely a matter of "best practices", it's a requirement for transportation projects that receive state and federal funds. Many residents feel that this requirement is adequately serving the residents of Bristol.
Perhaps the reason that this planning appears to be so top-down is BECAUSE IT IS! Consider the Capital Region Council of Governments' future planning documents for investments through the year 2040 as food for thought.
MAJOR POLICY DIRECTIONS The Capitol Region Transportation Plan outlines a comprehensive program for improving our transportation system to meet travel needs through the year 2040... It defines the Region's greatest needs, identifies which problems are the Region’s highest priority, and outlines how the Region should spend its limited capital funds. The Plan is also the sum of many specific and detailed studies. The recommendations of those studies, such as the Regional Transit Strategy, the bicycle and pedestrian plan, and several corridor studies, are summarized in this Plan.
... The 2015 Regional Transportation Plan continues to emphasize the desire to provide our Region’s residents with more travel options, and to reduce their need to rely exclusively on the private automobile. While the automobile will continue to dominate most travel in the Region, we need to provide more opportunities for people to use alternate means of transportation. With the earlier adoptions of the Regional Transit Strategy, the Regional Bike and Pedestrian Plan, and the opening of CTfastrak, we have taken major steps toward achieving that goal. ...
......The Plan continues to recognize that a common goal of both disciplines needs to be promoting sustainable communities in the Capitol Region. CRCOG’s transportation program supports livable community goals and the Regional Plan of Conservation and Development. This Plan also includes a commitment to coordination with State land use plans and policies
and green infrastructure treatments. Continued Emphasis on Environmental Justice. The Region reaffirms its commitment to address the transportation needs of all its residents including members of minority groups, low-income residents, and transit-dependent residents. This Plan continues to build on the many years of progress since our initial commitment. It continues to include the environmental justice policies and procedures adopted previously and identifies a list of environmental justice issues of special interest.
The Plan also supports CTfastrak and the Hartford Line transit corridors and looks to strengthen bus rapid transit...
Policies Reaffirmed
· More Travel Choices
· Sustainable Transportation
· Environmental Justice
· Transit Emphasis
· Better Bike & Walk Options
· Better Systems Operations and Management
Continued Emphasis on Pedestrian & Bicycle Travel. This Plan continues our efforts to promote non-motorized travel modes, focusing on the 5 “E’s”: Engineering, Education, Encouragement,
Enforcement, and Evaluation to achieve our vision.
...The bus system removes a significant portion of cars from the roads during the most congested periods of the day and in some of the most congested areas, and we plan for it to have an even bigger impact in the future...
...Sustainable and Livable Communities for a Sustainable Region
The Council of Governments has been an active proponent of public policies that promote sustainable and livable communities. The concept of sustainable and livable communities seeks to build communities that are vibrant and healthy, that have protected natural resources and open spaces, equitable access to opportunities and are economically competitive. A sustainable transportation system - one which provides options that easily allow citizens to choose modes other than the automobile for daily commuting and activities – is a critical component of creating sustainable, livable communities and regions. Creating this transportation system relies heavily on corresponding development priorities. Without developing dense nodes of mixed uses to support transit alternatives, the system cannot function. Promoting sustainable and livable communities is a specific goal of CRCOG’s transportation planning program, which highlights the Council’s commitment to enhancing the quality of life and durability of our member communities. Whether referred to as sustainable development or livable communities, the basic goals are:
· Environment – Create a balanced transportation system that allows for choice and seeks to limit CO2 emissions in the Region and protects natural resources from sprawl.
· Economy - Sustain prosperity and expand economic growth and competitiveness through focusing new development in dense nodes connected by a multi-modal transportation network.
· Equity – Create a transportation system that provides equitable access to jobs and opportunity for all of the Region’s citizens. Be sensitive to vulnerable populations when making future transportation investments so as not to disproportionately burden regional citizens with the negative impacts of transportation infrastructure. " http://crcog.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/LRTP-April-2015.pdf
So how would you feel if you woke up one day to learn that your neighbor was building a four-story six-unit building next to your single family home? Would you be surprised like some downtown Bristol residents?
The next meeting of the Planning Commission of Bristol addressing the Route 6 Corridor Study is on Wednesday, January 25th at 7 p.m.
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 numerousarticles 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.
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 "InnovationDistricts" 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 andreducing 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.
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.
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?
I have heard advocates of Bristol's urban renewal plan say they don't want a cookie-cutter downtown. With Bristol's redevelopment parcel's name being Depot Square, I was an immediate skeptic of the notion that it's characteristics were locally inspired. Transportation planning is a regional effort and New Urbanism projects are almost exclusively adapted from a centrally planned model. This is why I was not surprised to find common results in my internet search. Here's a look at five of the top location results. Can you spot the common elements of the Google Search?
Depot Square: Boulder, Colorado
This endeavor captured the most amount of responses using Google's browser.
Ads:
"Welcome to Depot Square Apartments, affordable apartments Boulder, Colorado. Our neighborhood sits close to everywhere you want to be. Walk to shopping. Walk to entertainment. Walk to public transportation. If you’d like to rent your new apartment home with a great location you’ll love the community we’ve created...."
"Boulder’s most unique affordable housing community, Depot Square!
Silva-Markham Partners is pleased to announce that it has been awarded management of Depot Square, which is part of a long-awaited transit oriented project; a Pedersen Development Co, Regional Transportation District and the city of Boulder collaboration, which provides for 71 permanently affordable, well-designed one and two bedroom apartment homes. An adjacent parking garage will provide a parking space on the same level as each apartment home. The uniquely planned community will also have bicycle parking, laundry facilities on every floor, large storage units, and controlled access. Depot Square residents will also enjoy a new city park and the Goose Creek Trailway just outside their doors!
"Roughly 20 would-be residents of the Depot Square apartments opening at Boulder Junction are scrambling for housing after city officials said they didn't meet Boulder's eligibility requirements to live in permanently affordable units. The residents are all students who applied to live in one of 71 permanently affordable one- and two-bedroom apartment units built by developer Scott Pedersen in Boulder Junction. The city contributed $5.4 million in affordable housing funds from another Pedersen project, the Solana, 3100 Pearl St.
Of 48 apartments for which applications were submitted, the city rejected 14 of them as being rented to ineligible students. Roughly 20 people were going to live in those 14 apartments. The apartment units, which are in the process of leasing now, are intended as housing for people who work in Boulder but could not otherwise afford to live there."
"...the Depot Square development in central Boulder, which will include an underground Regional Transportation District bus rapid transit station.
......DepotSquare is a $50 million to $55 million development that will include a 140-room Hyatt Place Hotel, a busrapid transit station, 71 permanently affordable apartments and a five-level parking structure built around the historic depot building..... ......Pedersen has been working on getting the project going for about three years. Other than the hotel, he said, he didn't yet have any tenants to announce. "Now that we've started construction and have a delivery date, our marketing effort can come back into focus," Pederson said. The project is part of a joint effort between the city of Boulder and the Regional Transportation District to create a transit area that incorporates a mix of uses, including a large affordable-housing component. Land to the west of Depot Square, where Pollard Motors sits now, will someday consist primarily of affordable housing. The Boulder Junction area has been eyed by the city for at least two decades, said Susan Osborne, former Boulder mayor, as she addressed the crowd at the groundbreaking, and the current plan is a far cry from consultants' early ideas that included a large surface-level parking lot with a simple bus turnaround. The new bus station will be a six-bay station located completely underground in the Depot Square development below the parking structure. "We're really proud of it," current Boulder Mayor Matt Appelbaum told the crowd. "It took a really strong and committed partnership to pull this off."
Delray Beach, Florida
City commissioners gave initial approval to the $20 million Depot Square Apartments in advance of a final vote on the site plan scheduled on July 9. The Caribbean-themed Depot Square would include 284 apartments, with 71 units dedicated to affordable workforce housing. The complex is designed with a mix of one, two and three-bedroom apartments.................................. City officials hope the project provides much-needed housing inventory near where residents work. The project site is minutes away from Delray’s downtown ..."
Windover completed the design/build of this mixed-use, transit-oriented, multi-unit residential building. Located adjacent to the Beverly train station, the project included 46 condominiums, first floor retail and two levels of underground parking."
"located downtown close to public transportation. 0 & 1 bedroom apts., heat & hotwater included. rent based on 30% of income"
"... following 2 years of negotiations and groundwork, announced it will not purchase Depot Square Apartments at the corner of Railroad Street and Eastern Avenue. The building's owner - Herb Berezin of Holyoke, Massachusetts - rejected a $1.43 million offer from St. Johnsbury-based Kingdom Development Company and its partner, Lyndon-based RuralEdge.
Bangemann-Johnson said issues at Depot Square have included health hazards such as bed bugs and on-street problems such as fistfights. Every apartment unit is subsidized by the federal Housing Assistance Program, or HAP, which is administered locally by the Vermont State Housing Authority, he said."
"Depot Square, a heavily infested building where canine scent detection teams found bed bugs in 39 of 47 units. WCAX.com reports,
"For the last four months, tenants living in the Depot Square building have been living side by side with bedbugs, even after repeated attempts to exterminate them.
“It seems like they can’t get rid of it then you have to throw away all of your stuff and start from scratch,” Stepp said.
A dog specially trained to sniff out bedbugs recently went through the Depot Square apartment complex and found that all but eight of the 47 units are infested."
The results for Depot Square, in Bristol, CT brought me to the Bristol Rising page featuring the Depot Square Unified Downtown Development Project Special Permit Application.
Below is a glimpse into what has long appeared in Bristol's regional Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy documents.
One excerpt from Bristol's West End Plan is to the right.
Do you think that the people in Bristol's community really have had a say in the creation of "affordable housing" on the former mall site?
Do you think that a grassroots effort is what brought about the idea of a so-called "walkable downtown" in downtown Bristol?
Do you think residents should have a say in how Bristol is to grow in the future?
*Top locations are not in consecutive order of top five results. The author makes no assertions nor claims as to whether readers find similar results when doing an internet search of their own using different search engines or methods and encourages readers to experiment with similar searches on his or her own.
As pictured in the Renaissance Downtowns' Comprehensive plan, the Plan of Conservation and Development is a focal point in the redevelopment of Bristol. According to State of Connecticut Statutes, the POCD shall "...be a statement of policies, goals and standards for the physical and economic development of the municipality, ..." It appears to be out of balance as housing is mentioned nearly 100 times more than jobs in the document. From the beginning, it would appear that the outcome of the plan has been predetermined in part long before the public participation process began due to state mandates. My perspective has not changed.
This blog is an effort to extirpate the data and identify the top-down central planning as well as the bottom up grassroots input in an effort to preserve what representation the general public has. As you can see in the diagram on the right, Renaissance Downtowns' development strategy was inserted into the original draft of the Plan of Development. It was subsequently removed as controversy over the developer surfaced.
The first public workshop for the POCD was supposed to be an effort to provide public input into the plan. As you can see from the images below, the members of the public were outnumbered by members of Bristol's Planning Commission and some of their family members. There were about five Bristol residents whom attended as well as one member of the local press.
Glen Chadler of Planimetrics graciously granted me a short interview prior to the workshop commencing. In conversation after the interview, he agreed that it was unfortunate that so few members of the community were in attendance for the workshop. An article in the local paper can have a significant impact on the drawing of attendants. Unfortunately that did not happen in Bristol he indicated. There were however a few "Bristol Rising" members in the audience whom were apparently prompted of the event and their input can be observed in the final draft policy document.
Some residents played connect-the-dots while placing the dots on the map.
What I found to be quite astonishing was the representation of paper money as an indicator of development preference. I can only wonder if the participants associated their choices with the high costs to bring it to fruition. Of course, as the federal reserve has shown the American people as of late, when it comes to paper money, money is no object. I wanted to put the whole booty on "sprawl development" but there was no option to do so. Therefore I kept my booty as a souvenir and chronicled in video.
As you can see from the thumbnail below, residential development and housing diversity received the smallest pile of loot regardless of the attendants. This further supports my assertions that high-density apartments are not what Bristol residents support for future development. Among those whom commented at the meeting were two non-residents. One is in the real estate market and the other is an investor for the downtown development. Their input is represented in the final document.
The city has had several special meetings of the planning commission dedicated to the Plan of Conservation and Development's creation. As the only member of the general public in attendance, the chairman allowed me to participate in the discussion after raising my hand. I had encouraged others to attend as well to provide their input but many were convinced that the plan had little to do with the downtown project as residents were encouraged to attend the Downtown Development Corporation's public meetings to voice their concerns. There were however a few meetings that brought a few looking to provide their input. At the first meeting that this occurred the was a heated debate about the encouragement of density development in the neighborhood of one very concerned resident.
The outcome was not a favorable one. At least one member of the commission insisted that the meeting was not a public hearing and therefore public comment should not be allowed. This was contested by myself as the City Charter states clearly:
"Sec. 49. - Boards and commissions. Meetings. All board meetings shall be public and all meetings of boards or commissions whose duties involve the transaction of public business shall be held at accessible stated public places and all meetings and the minutes thereof shall be open to the public. Any elector shall have the right to appear and be heard at any such meeting as to any business proper to come before said board or commission."
Upon entering the next meeting we found these signs posted. There is technically nothing wrong with the rules that were applied as they do in fact comply with the charter. The unfortunate thing is that there were four members of the public that attended with the intention of offering some input. After an hour of patiently waiting they left, never to return. This drew the ire of more than one resident whom found the action reprehensible. Some resident prefer not to comment prior to a meeting. Does two hours or more wait to make public comment constitute any form of accommodation in your opinion?
The video below illustrates how the language contained in the Plan of Development has an effect on the gathering of capital. Should this fact shadow the will of the residents who provided input? The outcome of the POCD hearing and adoption shall in this case put an important question to the test.
The representative from the City of Waterbury on conference call is concerned that the Regional Council of Government's municipal members' Plans of Development are in compliance with the State's Plan of Development in the video below.
The question to be tested is :
"Is Bristol's Plan of Conservation a top-down plan or a bottom-up one?"
The issue of municipal control vs. regional control in the planning process is discussed by Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley members at their second meeting in the video below. Municipal plans are designated as policy documents by Connecticut general statutes. The City of Bristol recently joined this COG as the state realigned planning agencies in a manner that some say resembles county government. A few bills moving through the state legislature would solidify this transformation. Some legislation would open the floodgates for Tax Incremental Financing for municipalities in the State of Connecticut without the oversight of the state nor protections of citizen-driven referendum. These funding mechanism have bankrupted many a California city for specifically the same purpose they are being pushed in Connecticut: To fund Transit-Oriented Development projects. . The stakes are high for those living paycheck-to-paycheck.
As you can see in the video below, the City of Shelton's planning board representative indicates that their planned development allows the municipality to keep social services down. Shelton's tax rates have been consistently low without an increase in mill rate for 20 years. The city is growing faster than any other in the COG.
Bristol's approach in the Plan of Development appears to be a sharp contrast to that. A municipality with more affordable housing than all surrounding towns appears on the path to create more. Of course, the plan is not limited to the Depot Square parcel. The map below indicates the downtown "Enterprise Zone" may be a future "Housing Opportunity Zone." Housing Incentive Zones are customarily created to draw transit-oriented development to a municipality because low-income riders are the demographic that primarily occupy buses on off-peak operation hours and are typically included in transit-oriented projects due to federal mandates.
WILL STATE GUIDELINES FORCE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO BE BUILT IN BRISTOL?
Municipal plans of Development serve as a guide for regionally planned projects in regional centers such as Bristol's downtown.
Section 10 of Bristol's NEW 2015-2025 Plan of Conservation and Development's, "GUIDE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT" section states:
"As of 2014, approximately 13.5% of Bristol's housing stock was considered affordable (governmentally assisted or available to moderate income house‐holds), based upon the definition of "affordable housing" established under Section 8‐39a of the Connecticut General Statutes. The state minimum threshold for affordable housing is 10%. Bristol's affordable housing stock also exceeds the state average as well as that of surrounding towns.
"Only About 5 percent of those surveyed for the Plan of Conservation and Development identified a price‐related housing arrangement (affordable,subsidized, family) as their next housing choice.
HOWEVER, in accordance with the State of Connecticut's General Statutes 8-23, the Municipal Plan of Conservation and Development MUST :
"Show concentration of development around transportation nodes and along major transportation corridors to support the viability of transportation options and land reuse
*Show the commission's recommendation for the most desirable use of land within the municipality for residential, recreational, commercial, industrial and other purposes and for the most desirable density of population in the SEVERAL parts of the municipality.
*be designed to promote with the greatest efficiency and economy the coordinated development of the municipality and the general welfare and prosperity of its people.
*integration of planning across all levels of government to address issues on a local, regional and state-wide basis,
*make provision for the development of housing opportunities, including opportunities for multifamily dwellings, consistent with soil types, terrain and infrastructure capacity, for all residents of the municipality and the planning region in which the municipality is located, as designated by the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management under section 16a-4a,
*promote housing choice and economic diversity in housing, including housing for both low and moderate income households, and encourage the development of housing which will meet the housing needs identified in the housing plan prepared pursuant to section 8-37t and in the housing component and the other components of the state plan of conservation and development prepared pursuant to chapter 297.
*In preparing such plan the commission shall consider focusing development and revitalization in areas with existing or planned physical infrastructure."
THESE STATE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE FOUND IN OUR PLAN FOR THE NEXT 10 YRS OF BRISTOL'S DEVELOPMENT
In section 10.2.2. of the POCD, "Housing Design" it is stated,
"Encourage the appropriate design of housing in order to meet community needs in the future.
In section 10.2.3., "Housing Diversity", it is stated, "Encourage the provision of a diverse array of attractive, decent, safe and sanitary housing to meet the social and economic needs of Bristol’s current and future population."
and in Section 10.3.3., "Housing Diversity", it states.:
1. Encourage the diversification of the local housing stock in appropriate locations (such as near services and/or transit) to meet the changing housing needs of current and future residents.
2. To help address current and future housing needs, consider permitting multi‐family development of appropriate density and design to be located:
in downtown Bristol in mixed use buildings,
along major commercial highway corridors, and
in other business districts or other suitable locations.
3. Strive to encourage the provision of:
affordable housing for the elderly who need it,
and affordable housing for families and individuals who need it.
THIS IS ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL POLICY! Bristol ALREADY has more than it's fair share of diverse affordable housing stock!
Bristol's Final Draft of the Plan of Development identifies the local area's percentages of affordable housing as follows.:
Bristol's percentage of multi-family also exceeds both state averages as well as the percentages of surrounding towns. The Final Draft of the Plan of Development identifies those town's percentages of Multi-Family housing as follows.:
Bristol's percentage of renter-occupied housing also exceeds both state averages as well as the percentages of surrounding towns. The Final Draft of the Plan of Development identifies those town's percentages of renter-occupied housing as follows.: Percent Renter Occupied
One of the major problems with these Plans of Conservation and Development is that they are all basically identical in the manner that they dictate state policy of mixed-use transit-oriented development, which is the hardest type of development to find investment capital for. The state government that mandates the mixed-use smartgrowth development subsidizes it on the state level, encourages municipalities to further subsidize it with bonding, tax-incremental financing and future revenue schemes that place all the risk onto taxpayers. These types of projects are also inclusive of "affordable housing". What people need to ask themselves if they themselves want to live in a mixed-use public-transit-oriented community of dense development (such as the urban centers in the state that are already well established in a natural fashion) before they consent to funding it. Otherwise they may find themselves or their neighbors eventually forced out of their homes and into one of these developments due to the state's oppressive tax climate with more increases in the way.
As the survey indicates, less than 40% of residents in Bristol are working full-time and are likely on a fixed budget. Bristol is also the 13th most distressed community in the state with an average of one home foreclosure per day in the last quarter of 2014. Many are at a financial tipping point and this is likely the cause of the population decline as of late. Only jobs will stimulate real growth in Bristol.
Many have been silent about how the Plan of Development relates to Forestville. The city has apparently worked with a small group of individuals and organizations to complete a Forestville Plan that contains much of the same language as the plans for the Depot Project and the 2011 West End Plan that includes the straightening of route 72 and the "recently proposed" "bicycle paths". Like Newington, the plan will likely create two new urbanized areas along the busway as planning documents indicate.
Perhaps mandated, perhaps because of the low participation rate of the workshop, or perhaps it is a standard of practice, but for whatever reason the City of Bristol had a telephone survey of Bristol residents completed to provide input into the Plan of Development. Four-hundred heads-of households' answers were included in the raw data and conclusions. At this point one can again see the apparent disconnect between the respondents' answers and the POCD's conclusions. Development strategies can be seen in the outline to the right. The following images are from the raw data from the survey from Great Blue Research. The conclusions of the raw data surveyed from the contracted firm greatly differ from those in the city's POCD and I found it necessary to contest it in several forums both online and at city meetings. The will of residents should be upheld!
The survey data solidifies the conclusion that the residents of Bristol DO NOT support the expansion of affordable housing in Bristol's downtown or on the Depot Square parcel. This is VERY relevant to the incorrect assertion in the plan that the desire to see development of the site is synonymous with the creation of high-density housing on the parcel and surrounding area.
Some members of the community objected to contesting the conclusions of the survey. Should it's ability to attract market capital for something that the residents do not want take precedent over the preservation of representative government and the ability of the public to access public information for a survey commissioned with taxpayer money?
One member of the public addressed the issue of the lack of public outreach at the second POCD workshop. It would cost the city little money to advertise the opportunity to participate.
I took upon an effort to bring the raw data to the attention to the general public on a few of Bristol's social network groups. That effort was met with hostility by a select few individuals. The screenshots, data and links were subsequently deleted. The sad fact is that public discourse is consistently stifled when it comes to the TOD Agenda in Bristol's social networks. Some dissenting opinions led to the removal of individuals and a "no arguing with the administrator" policy. Even more disturbing is the statements and assertions of some of these individuals. Is "see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil." their policy?
One would expect those whom are advocating for your tax dollars to be spent on the Housing Agenda would know all of the details but they refer to facts as opinions, documents as unrelated and defunct, and state policies as conspiracy theories. These propagandists use their slogans and narratives to back up their assertions. Any debate must be pointed towards agreement... or else.
Apparently blind with positivity, this faction of the cabal insists this is the only way. The consensus in some circles is that their goal is to promote the agenda of high-density housing in Bristol and to immediately stifle any dissent with ridicule. These are the hallmark tactics of left-wing radicals. When confronted with a direct question or logical argument, their actions replicate Saul Alinsky's Rule For Radicals #12.
As Wikipedia defines it :
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions."
Sadly, public officials are members of these social networks but fail to make statements about the assertions. They remain wholly silent on the issue.
The tactic is as cookie-cutter as the TOD agenda itself and they go hand-in-hand with the agenda. It is best described by Newington resident Gail Budrejko who states that city taxpayers in their town have been labeled negative, fear-mongerers, and cop-outs, and been labeled as trouble makers for attending public meetings and raising their concerns.
"Labeling and name calling is an infantile and divisionary tactic often used when people don't have facts to support their position. "
Who can disagree?
Mrs. Budrejko also asserts that the city wholly ignored the survey results in proceeding with Newington's high-density busway-oriented agenda. Ironically, their Plan of Development was also performed by the same company as Bristol's. Their fight to preserve their town has reached a tipping point. Will it be too late for Bristol?
It would seem that the ONLY thing important to some Bristol officials is the Sustainable Development project for Depot Square. They claim they are trying to grow Bristol but what they are doing is limiting choices as to where and what businesses can be established. . Could this perhaps be the main cause of the lack of growth in the development in Bristol?
Some well known businessmen in the city seem to think that is the case according to their testimony at the Plan of Development hearing on June 3rd. The public hearing is a state requirement. As indicated in the statute,
"A plan of conservation and development or any part thereof or amendment thereto prepared by the commission or any special committee shall be reviewed, and may be amended, by the commission prior to scheduling at least one public hearing on adoption."
Bristol's Plan of Conservation and Development covers not only the downtown, but the entire city and it's development for the next decade. It is also a legal document that the state uses to claim their housing agenda is a bottom-up or grassroots plan. The author of this blog concurs that is far from the truth. As I have previously stated, the PoCD is a document that is used in consideration of the receipt of grant monies as clearly indicated by the grants administrator of Bristol's testimony at the PoCD hearing.
I admire the woman's honesty and she is doing precisely what her job entails. But if the PoCD is a document that is to represent a "vision", but the question remains, "Whose vision should it represent?". Section 8-23 of Connecticut's General Statutes states that the PoCD must consider "social, economic and governmental conditions and trends,"
Just exactly should these social trends to be obtained from in a bottom-up document? The Plan of development according to state statute also shall,
"be designed to promote, with the greatest efficiency and economy, the coordinated development of the municipality and the general welfare and prosperity of its people and identify areas where it is feasible and prudent."
Have you heard in the local paper about the Route 6 Corridor Study? The story mentions a few aspects of the study recommendations from the commissioned firm Fitzgerald and Halliday. It mentions that the study draft recommendations include recommendations to make Route 6 more "walkable". I'm not sure the study was necessary to reach that conclusion as one can clearly see that some of the major intersections lack proper crosswalks as well as functional crossing signals. But as our former city planner Alan Weiner once stated, the study IS NOT about traffic but instead about DEVELOPMENT along this corridor. Specifically, the Draft Recommendations of the plan refers to walkability as to, "Encourage compact, mixeduse,
and walkable
commercial centers/clusters."
The Capitol Region Transportation Plan outlines a comprehensive program for improving our transportation system to meet travel needs through the year 2040... It defines the Region's greatest needs, identifies which problems are the Region’s highest priority, and outlines how the Region should spend its limited capital funds. The Plan is also the sum of many specific and detailed studies. The recommendations of those studies, such as the Regional Transit Strategy, the bicycle and pedestrian plan, and several corridor studies, are summarized in this Plan.
