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)

Double Bill Emergency

Is it a dire emergency?  One can only surmise as to why there is a double bill venue at 6 pm on Monday at Bristol City Hall.  The two special meetings scheduled for Monday, December 28th are both regarding the sale of property on Bristol's former mall site.  Both the Board of Finance and the Special City Council meeting are scheduled for the same time.  This sale of the public's property happens to be subject to a waiver of the City of Bristol's procedures.
 The Board of Finance agenda states:

"  To waive Section 2.G.2 of the Purchasing Policies regarding disposition of real estate, relative to the sale of property at Depot Square to Bristol Hospital and to take any action as necessary"

 The City Council's agenda states:

"To convene into Executive Session to discuss an offer to purchase City owned property at Main Street and Riverside Avenue."

and

 "To reconvene into Public Session and take any action as necessary regarding an offer to purchase City owned property at Main Street and Riverside Avenue."

I fear that there may be reason for public concern.   It appears that the last article to appear in The Bristol Press about the issue may indeed be the last article published there by the city's favorite civic reporter. His resignation, which has garnered national news attention, sheds light onto his wife's reason for resigning in 2011 and it's relationship to the hospital's affairs, stating that she,

"quit in disgust after Mr. Schroeder cut a deal with a major advertiser, the local hospital, to keep a damaging news story under wraps."
 Both of the Collins' have resigned while controversy was amidst regarding the hospitals' affairs.  I honestly do not know if they are relative or just coincidental.  .  One thing for sure is that regardless of the intent of Connecticut's Sunshine Laws, Steve Collins' FOI request regarding the Letter of Intent pertaining to the conditions of the sale to Bristol Hospital was recently rejected by the City of Bristol.   The reason stated was,

"because it was a preliminary draft"  

Mr.  Collins' request further states that under sec. 1-210(b)(1) of the State of CT General Statutes that,

 "preliminary drafts or notes" can be exempt from FOI "provided the public agency has determined that the public interest in withholding such documents clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure."

 One would think that public deals concerning public land and possible public debt would be subject to public disclosure.  If the public interest is not determined by the public itself then what can be said for representative government?  Who decides what is best for the "greater good" or the "common good of Bristol" if it is not the citizens themselves?


As revealed in the article,

"Among the questions that city officials are weighing is how to cope with the parking needs for a building with 250 or more employees... "
Apparently, a consolidation of downtown offices and a consumption of available parking lot will place an unnecessary burden on patrons in the name of new construction and relocation.  As I have indicated in the past, the downtown plans have always been to include public parking garages that would come at a high and unnecessary cost to taxpayers. Could that be a condition of the sale?  If so, will taxpayers' hands then be tied?

 We cannot be sure what to expect under these circumstances.  But under these circumstances, it's hard not to ask a moral question.

   Has the City of Bristol declared itself the sole arbitrator of it's own dealings with public money and public land?

 I guess we will find out Monday the 28th.


There is no public comment scheduled for the meetings.

Identity Crisis Development in Bristol

Is fear mongering and self loathing a predevelopment strategy in Bristol, CT?  It seems as though some Bristolites are suffering from a nanny-state induced identity crisis.  Towns and cities across the country implementing new urbanist redevelopment strategies have embarked upon an effort to rebrand themselves using methods and labels that most regular folks find quite peculiar.  Much of what has appeared in the local media has been focused around some of the region's baseball teams, some whom have been moved around in deals focused on new taxpayer-funded stadiums and comprehensive economic development projects.   Hartford's Transit-Oriented deal includes high-density housing and commercial development at a projected cost of $350 million,  The $63 million dollar stadium project relies upon public debt to be repaid with projected revenues through the nonprofit quasi public-private Hartford Stadium Authority.  Hartford holds a twenty-five year contract with the former New Britain Rock Cats whom now yeild a new name based upon Hartford's railroad history.  The public has been told that the name "Hartford Yard Goats" was proposed in jest, chosen by lottery and subsequently adopted.  Most normal people consider it quite an odd identity.


 The State of Connecticut's Governor's legacy of chasing out industry and replacing it with housing can be seen reverberating in nearby New Britain.  Mayor Erin Stewart's name has been appearing in the local press and in Bristol's social media groups as the regional transportation agenda props up affordable housing with subsidies. Development within a half mile of transit transforms the city's downtown buildings from places of employment into transit-oriented housing.   She recently announced her city's new ball team name, "The Bees" in a press release.

 “On the city seal is a beehive, and underneath the city slogan in Latin it means ‘Industry fills the hive and enjoys honey.’ It’s a tribute to our industrial past.”

It seems that the past has eluded future planning.  The plans indicate that there is a housing imbalance in New Britain as jobs outnumber adjacent housing units by a 3:1 ratio.  This epitomizes the wrongheadedness of the state's direction as it pursues it's agenda of prioritizing housing over employment.   Has the entire state forgotten that employment is what brought people to the Hardware City in the first place?

Here in Bristol we are witnessing the same phenomenon.  We may likely have the best ball team name in the region because the Bristol Blues is not involved in such endeavors.  We have been spared from having to fund the erection of a new coliseum and parking facility, but there is indeed a focus locally to try to reinvent Bristol and make it into something new.  The efforts have not been led by the citizens themselves, but instead by a small group of people imposing a new identity onto a city that they feel has lost it's former self.  Not only has the public-funded branding excluded the public-at-large, the city's public meetings on the topic are practically inaccessible to most residents due to their early daytime scheduling.  The extended group's roster consists of a former employee of Bristol's former downtown master developer, board of finance members , city councilors, chamber of commerce employees and local nonprofit Mum City organizers looking to throw out the old and come in with the new.  "All-Heart" didn't stick with the residents, but they feel it will help grow Bristol.  It appears that it could more likely help grow a new government backed housing bubble.

click here for sources

Growth seems to be the focus of these individuals and other supporters of this downtown new urbanism plan.    But exactly what kind of growth are they seeking?   Bristol's grand list history shows growth of more than 40% in a decade and it remains more than 30% higher after the housing bubble started stabilizing.  When confronted with this fact, one advocate of taxpayer subsidies without public consent declared that "growth is much more than that".  Could this be a reference to the density and vertical development growth that these people are in favor of?  I received no explanation.  Employment growth seems to be the obvious necessity but has eluded the priorities of these people.  In this span of time we have lost more than thirty percent of manufacturing jobs in Bristol.  These market-driven jobs are what brought the largest growth and prosperity in the history of the city.    Production bears the fruits of growth in any healthy sustainable city.  Arts and culture are necessary elements in society and should be promoted, however, such depression-era priorities may pacify the whims of many but I do not find that such taxpayer-funded projects will lead to prosperous economic growth.   Rome also had it's bread and circuses.

 Bristol's  Enterprise Zone was created to entice development to a low-median-income area but Bristol's Public Annual Finance Reports indicate that Bristol's unemployment has lagged behind surrounding communities and is expected to continue to as a result of it's creation.  Additionally, a focus on retail development downtown is unlikely to bring good paying jobs to local residents. In fact, retail and food service jobs happen to be the lowest paying jobs in the country.  This type of development is designed specifically to boost transit ridership because the predominant users of public transportation at off-peak times have historically been recognized as low-income.  This is not a coincidence folks.  This is the future that is being planned for downtown Bristol and there are people that are "mum-city" about it.

Meanwhile we have commercial growth of the same nature these maestros are supporting (minus the high-density housing) occurring naturally and without a subsidy in Bristol's primary commercial corridor.  This also happens to be the areas that the self-loathing advocates are most unhappy with as they try to steer commercial growth into geographical areas that have proven to not be economically sustainable.    Even pharmacy giant CVS has relocated from across the street of Bristol's Depot Square to the most viable location in the Enterprise Zone.   This area also happens to be at the end of Bristol's major commercial corridor.  Most people are happy with the new construction as it is much more attractive than the former buildings at that location.  It will also generate more tax revenue for the city.  Some people however have voiced their discontent with the new construction stating that, 

"Bristol doesn't need a new pharmacy".  

Apparently unaware of the reason for relocation, the lesson in local economics has evaded their recognition.  As one local businessman pointed out at a recent city meeting, investors want to develop where there are high traffic counts because that's where the largest amounts of people can be reached. It's a fact of life not to be ignored, lest the residents suffer loss of personal property in the attempt to spite it.   The development of new pharmacies is in inevitability in a nation with more than seventy percent of it's residents taking prescription drugs.


When the majority of your city's residents own a bank account you will continue to see the construction of new banking institutions.  These are signals of consumer habits of the population and not the inadequacies of planning.   What would happen should a city choose to not allow for such development?  Wouldn't such action would be detrimental to the growth and reputation of a city?  To what extreme should a city strive to limit growth to a particular geographical location?

If we refuse to recognize and appreciate the free growth happening across Bristol, we will likely see the stagnation that some have been fear mongering about.  It's difficult enough for businesses in Bristol to establish themselves and remain afloat as the governor continues his agendas of excessive taxation and unsustainable budgets for radically expanding public transportation.

What some people fail to recognize or acknowledge is that grants and subsidies for centrally planned developments are not merely gifts from government.  These monies must first be taken from successful business owners and property owners whom are often struggling to stay afloat.  In this regard, subsidizing development, tax abatements, etc. creates a playing field that's not quite level and can be potentially damaging to existing businesses.





To simplify the point, let's say that market demand in a community of 60,000 residents such as Bristol was able to sustain six locally owned businesses in a particular market.  Market research would indicate to potential business investors that there is not sufficient market demand and investors would not likely be interested in entering the local market.  But when municipalities offer incentives to encourage investment where the market does not, the new business that would not otherwise have been established can encroach upon the potential incomes of the existing six businesses.  This puts an additional burden on existing businesses competing in this government-induced crowded market.  This an often unforeseen consequence of local market intervention.  New business doesn't necessarily equate to more business nor business growth. 

The spending habits and attitudes of the residents are what most strongly affects the market growth in any free society.   Americans must recognize the fact that free-market growth is the lifeblood of America's prosperity.  It is the essence of the reflection of the free choices of the consumer.  If we do not embrace it, we will surely lose what is left of the freedom of choices it offers.  It's happening right in front of our eyes.  How's your vision?