Bristol's 10 year Plan of Development: A Documented Authoritarian Agenda

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 13.45%
State 11.26%
Farmington 7.73%
Plainville 7.44%
Plymouth 7.11%
Wolcott 7.11%
Southington 5.71%
Burlington 2.04%

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 39%
State 35%
Plainville 25%
Farmington 24%
Southington 16%
Plymouth 14%
Wolcott 12%
Burlington 7%

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 

Bristol 33%
Plainville 32%
State 32%
Farmington 23%
Southington 19%
Plymouth 18%
Wolcott 10%
Burlington 4%

  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."


Will the final document do so?

Depot Square's Transit-Oriented! CTFastrak Launch in Bristol

The launch of the CTFastrak was ushered in at Bristol's Depot Square Saturday.  As part of the State of Connecticut's initiative to lower carbon emissions while increasing transit ridership, billions are being invested across the state in public-private partnerships with the goal of building human settlements along the state's newly expanded transit corridors.  Many local residents associate the new Bus-Rapid-Transit (BRT) as the "Busway to nowhere".  Although the actual guideway structure has only been constructed as far as New Britain,  Bristol's Depot Square development indeed sits at the opposite end of the Bristol-Hartford route.

The new buses offer free WiFi (until you reach your daily data limit) but trendy as advertised, the  guideway was constructed to alleviate roadway congestion for commuters travelling to Hartford and the reason it seemingly ends "nowhere" became clear in my 2 hour and fifteen minute round-trip commute.  The bus left Bristol's enterprise zone and then Plainville's housing incentive zone carrying less than ten passengers.  Upon pulling into New Britain's Main Street station it became clear why the guideway ended there.  Nearly twenty passengers boarded at this stop and as we approached Hartford we picked up anywhere from a couple to a half dozen passengers at each stop.  The bus became clearly packed with passengers whom found standing room only upon reaching the state's capitol.  So what does this have to do with the guideway stopping in New Britain instead of continuing to Bristol you ask?

The relevant fact is that grant monies for large scale infrastructure projects are awarded in accordance with ridership numbers and Bristol's ridership does not quantify such a large investment.  It seems however,  as though some individuals would like to change that as Bristol's planning documents indicate that Bristol's downtown will be the site of an intermodal transportation hub for years.



Many experts agree that when building Transit-Oriented projects it is essential to include an expansion of mixed-income housing.   According to the Berkley University collaborative publication called  "Transit-Oriented for All":

"...many cities have found inclusionary zoning ordinances and reduced parking requirements useful for stimulating new affordable housing construction. Cities working to create and preserve mixed-income transit-oriented neighborhoods can draw from an array of tested policies to find the right set of tools for achieving mixed-income transit-oriented communities." 

We see this practice being implemented in the State of Connecticut's TOD strategy as communities with such designations are predominantly targeted communities.  Plainville's town center has the "Housing Incentive Zone" designation while Bristol's West End has adopted an "Enterprize Zone" classification and has made changes to local zoning with the help of their chosen Master Developer working on the city's transit-oriented project.


The Enterprize Zone demographic requirements are as follows per state of Connecticut Statutes.

Primary census tracts must meet at least one of the following:

• a poverty rate of at least 25%
• an unemployment rate of two times the state average
• at least 25% of the tract's population receives public assistance 

Secondary census tracts must meet lower thresholds:

• a poverty rate of 15%
• an unemployment rate of at least 1/5 times the state average
• at least 15% of the tract's population receiving public assistance
  
  

The "experts" in the publication also shed some light on the inclusion of low-income housing for transit projects as a necessary ingredient for the success of their goals.  As stated in the paper:

"Because those without a car often use transit for non-work trips as well – e.g., trips to the store, school or recreation – low-income households also play a crucial role in filling seats during “offpeak” times. This makes transit service more efficient, while also paying dividends for the region through less congestion. Mixed-income transit-oriented development helps ensure that transit’s most frequent riders have access to transit, by placing a range of housing options within walking distance of the station."

Title VI requirements indicate that people from all classes and races must have equal opportunities provided by such projects receiving federal grant monies and this is even posted on the busway wall.   Nonetheless, a fixed guideway is not only the least cost effective method to achieve the goals of  helping people out of poverty, but may leave people without proper access for decades withing for development to happen.  Connecting residents with employment opportunities today requires a more diverse route than a fixed guideway provides and far too many state taxpayers cannot afford to construct all of the housing, infrastructure and keynesian job stimulus on this massive and aggressive scale.
This makes me wonder if the city's actions taken in conclusion of their Raquel Kennedy Consulting Report regarding Fair Housing and transportation access will be bringing Bristol the Fastrak guideway.

The State of Department of Housing and Connecticut's Transit Oriented Development policy is to connect residents with opportunities.  According to DOT director Michael Sanders, CT Transit is launching expanded feeder service with the launch of the CTFastrak.  Whether or not this expansion meets the needs of local residents remains to be seen.  I can only rely on the testimony of the public transit riders.







I had the pleasure of speaking with this bright resident (as well did both Bristol and Newington's town planners whom shared the ride back from Hartford with us) who gracefully granted me a video interview where he explains that the CTFastrak is a waste of money as it does not help the residents of Bristol who need public transportation the most.  How do you think that the city plans to help them?

Tyranny Oriented Developments: TOD Push Comes to Shove in CT

Today's circumvention of political processes has come to the forefront of the debate of local control, home rule, and the basic protections of personal private property.  Governors Bill 6851. AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE CONNECTICUT TRANSIT CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, was introduced by State Representatives Sharkey, Aresimowicz,and Senators Looney and Duff. This particular piece of legislation was apparently drafted to strongarm municipalities into developing their town centers in accordance with state desires.  The bill illustrates what great lengths some officials will go to to implement an agenda against the will of the people they are elected to represent. Representative Gail Lavielle testified on March 6th that this bill would give,"absolute authority to a board of appointees to decide what would be built in your town within a half mile radius of any train or bus station.", providing the power of eminent domain to this new state authority  in "consultation, not approval" of municipal leaders. As Lavielle stated ,this bill could have been drafted in a manner to include municipalities in the process,but it was not. The bill is described as "scary" by Rep. Dubitsky in the March 6th CTN Planning and Development Committee video.

According to Lavielle, if this bill passes, the newly formed State Authority could essentially do whatever it wants within this transit corridor . The effect of this legislation is that it could potentially transform a city like Bristol into an inner-city environment complete with high-rise "affordable housing" units near the planned development hub in Bristol's downtown.


The Connecticut Council of Municipalities submitted testimony against hb 6851, calling it "highly problematic". The CCM represents 156 towns and 96% of the state's population. Their testimony states the bill, "appears to remove or limit local control and input on any or all proposed Authority development projects."




DECD Commissioner Catherine Smith testified in favor of the state usurpation of municipal development authority. The purposes of the program and the goals of the corsortium are hilighted in her submitted testimony.

Click here to read the entire testimony document

To the dismay of a great many residents and the surprise of State Representative and ranking member of the P&D Committee in the state capitol,Newington Council Marjority leader Terry Borjeson publicly testified in favor of granting authority to the State of Connecticut to take control of it's downtown development. If the bill were to pass,the newly formed State Authority would have the authority to use eminent domain and essentially do whatever it wants within this transit corridor .




Newington residents were not pleased to say the least.




Now is the time for the advocates of these plans for downtown to consider the fact that they have opened a proverbial Pandora's box and they must reassess the downtown plan in consideration of the current political environment.



You can view the Governor's Bill by clicking  here

Depot Stakeholders Fill Void With Reproach For Critics

    It's a new year and most have reflected on their milestones of 2014, but not those who are only digging a sore spot on Despot Lot. The stakeholders' plans have had more extensions and brought more shame upon themselves than Milli-Vanilli on their night of Bristol infamy. Even the nationally covered Aaron Herndandez scandal has brought less public attention and ire among local residents. Yet some of these stakeholders have continued to bring more shame upon themselves by repeatedly publishing their fallacies and ad hominem attacks in local papers. Some of these players are so arrogant as to refer to detractors of a plan that has failed to reach each milestone promised to taxpayers as negative nellies, conspiracy theorists, naysayers, whiny and other repugnant terms. Some deny the irrefutable facts contained in regional planning documents, State of Connecticut public acts and statutes, DOT Guidelines, Bristol's Annual Action Plan, etc., and dismiss ANY argument as without merit without addressing one single fact.

  These methods are the rules for radicals who purport to care about Bristol while slamming the predominant opinion of it's residents. I applaud the efforts of these mouthpeices of the establishment as they do a better job of illustrating how out-of-touch they are with the majority than I could. Yes, the stakeholders call it a conspiracy theory but call it whatever they may; a willing donor's public-private partnership is an unwilling man's cabal. To afford the public an opinion of their own should surely escape the limits of one's self-image of elitism.

We all want Bristol's future to be a success and for the downtown to be redeveloped but we the citizens of Bristol do not equate the success of this cookie-cutter, transit-oriented plan to the success of Bristol. We are informed citizens and see what is happening in surrounding Connecticut towns and cities. We are familiar with the Malloy/State of CT Department of Transportation and Department of Economic and Community Development's agenda. We read the city's minutes and documents and attend city meetings. We know that this plan is not the grassroots plan that the stakeholders purport it to be and we the people have spoken with disdain regarding building apartments on this lot. Nonetheless, minimum building requirements for the site have been removed from the developer agreement.


   The City of Bristol's Plan of Conservation and Development draft (which is open to public comment at the Bristol Public Library on January 24th), suggests the city take action to create an expansion of dense affordable housing adjacent to transit. This document is a guide for the next ten years of Bristol's downtown development and will likely be used to codify a radical transformation of Bristol to a dense urban center in concert with the State of Connecticut's goals. Transportation Policy Forum Hartford, CT 12-3-14
   There are no guarantees that the planners' goals of changing the demographics of the area will succeed and plenty of legitimate reasons to think they will not. Furthermore, 2012 FBI Statistics  reflected in Table 8 and CT OPM City and Towns statistics prove that CT cities with higher density and populations have higher crime rates and the expansion of the CTFastrak to the downtown is unlikely to help the situation.

    A recent survey by the planners show that rising taxes is the number one concern of Bristol residents. Can you find an urban center in Connecticut with lower taxes than Bristol?  Check the Office of Policy and Management's website by clicking here.  I bet the mouthpieces of Bristol's political propaganda can fruitlessly try, but will keep their findings hush and call it (and therefore you) irrelevant. Now is the time again for Bristol residents to stand up and speak their minds regarding their concerns of the future of their city.   Change is coming. Will you let a small group of people leave you and your family to pull their wagon?

Above image is from 2000 POCD and these land uses are being updated in the new plan for 2015-2015 (below)

.

How Special Interests Stole Bristol

"Gifts" From Government


Bristolites like small-town character a lot...
But a group of transformers with big plans do not!
As those who asked why, weren't provided a reason.
The transformative plan does not fit locals' pleasin'.
The upscale shopping was hook, line and sinker,
But the mass of apartments and debt was the stinker.

It could be their heads weren't screwed on just right.
It could be Southeast Business Park debts were too tight.
Or perhaps that the state offering cash was too tempting,
For those special interests whose taxes we're exempting.

But those watching their budgets watched details get buried,
A public purse handout despite promised contrary.
Officials hoped opposers would be kept at bay,
And pull like a small dog with overweight sleigh.


Whether well intended, misguided, without choice or confused,
They pretended that there could be nothing to lose.
Sixty-thousand tax dollars and no input from town,
They renamed "Mum City"  "All Heart", (doubled down)


So despite the predominant public dissension,
Subsidized infrastructure and a contract extension,
They said that two million was all we were funding,
In an effort to stop referendum from coming!


Then they claimed that the public and the markets had both,
Guided smartgrowth and the walkability approach.
And as those who weren't Gruber-ed knew better before,
The piazza promise was revoked evermore.

For the visions projected were on the back shelves,
And left for taxpayers to finance themselves.
And even more telling something was amiss,
The Fastrak was coming, Transit-oriented-ness.


So with free land and cash for a pie in the sky,
Residents demand the who's whos tell us WHY!

They claim, "It pays for itself with new tax revenues,"
"Just a smidgen of help, a few dollars of dues ."
"For a small group of people knows better than you"
"What Bristol wants, needs, and what it should do"

The plans for dense housing and increased population,
A social justice ladder of public transportation,
Is supported by those who have something to gain,
Denouncing the busway and pleading for train,

For instead of a focus on high unemployment,
They offered "vibrancy" to entice your endorsement.
For the property values near transit are higher,
Perhaps some will "flip" Bristol, then move to retire.

Then it's likely high crime rates and taxes ensue,
And force out Cindy, Lou and me and then you.
For grants from government aren't from Santa Claus,
They aren't gifts at all, they are DEBTS, bound by laws,
That take Christmas gift money from struggling residents,
And give them to agenda enablers as presents.


Perhaps Bristol's true heart, doesn't come from a plan.
From big government, developers, or their marketing man.
Maybe Bristol...perhaps...needs a little bit more!
The will of the residents should be restored!

(Needs three sizes more)

Government Pressure and the First Amendment in Bristol, CT

After more than a year of the issue first surfacing, the Bristol Press has made a change to their format
that will forever change the public dialogue in Bristol, CT. The change brings some civility to the comments section but is the downside worthy of the measure? Many elderly residents and those whom have shunned the popular social network of Facebook will forever be absent from public discourse in the forum. The change also leaves municipal employees fearful of retribution from disclosing their personal opinions regarding government overreach and improprieties. However, political insiders and special interests have applauded the change as productive to the promotion of Bristol's downtown revitalization. It is this particular issue that drew my attention at the start of the government's advocacy for such. In fact, it is my contention that the issue brought the actions of some local officials and stakeholders beyond the constitutional limitations of government intervention of free speech.


Video Credit Nutmeg TV Public Access (Fair use all rights reserved)

The action spurred one of the most commented stories of all time in the Bristol Press and was featured in the headlines of the popular Connecticut news source aggrage site "The Capitol Report". Those opposed to the project were seemingly "called out" as toxic to public view while those anonymously slandering "the naysayers" were left apparently unscathed.

The declarations of certain public officials has in fact resonated in my mind for quite some time, inspiring not only my newly found inspiration to advocate in defense of my rights but to commemorate the anniversary of the event in an address to the council.



The change of the new source's format could not come at a more awkward time as pointed out by local victim of abuse of private property rights. . This culmination of discontent was fueled by the disgust of commenters as an apparent extension was already decided behind closed doors. The comment thread had also escalated to a concerted effort to stop the development by way of referendum blocking a change in city ordinances regarding the planning region bringing the Fastrak to downtown Bristol. From what I can see, the story has apparently since disappeared from the internet, comments and all. I do however have an archive of the story from last year, which I will include directly in this blog for a brief period to reflect on those who will forever left out of the conversation. I'm guessing there will be much less of it at the expense of the people of Bristol.

You can view an archive of the story by clicking here.

Of Debt and Planning

Can a society lay claim to a moral high ground when using debt to finance planning agendas for future generations?   Our nation's founders were well aware of the dangers of the burdens of public debt, the hazards of awarding bounties ,  and their impact on the prosperity of our nation.  Yet despite these warnings and lessons from history, we have become passive in our convictions.  We have allowed our representatives to continue to pile debt upon the backs of our children and our grandchildren under the guise of investment while exceeding budgetary limitations.  The federal debt has now risen to $17.5 trillion dollars and our state debt has climbed to over $40 billion with both budgets continuing to run deficits.


The state of Connecticut is currently investing an unprecedented amount of the state capital budget  (over $1 billion a year and more than 1/3 of the capital budget) on Conservation and Development.  These funds are driving a restructuring of land use and economic development while the state is running a nearly $1 billion budget deficit.  Transit oriented development is the mode that Connecticut legislators and planners have chosen for land use planning and economic investments in much of  the of the state.  Master developers of large mixed use developments including affordable housing are among the primary recipients of these funds.  In fact, on March 28th, the State Bonding Commission bonded $1 million dollars to establish a new special fund specifically designated for such projects.

But what of the desires of taxpayers to live in such communities?  A recent poll from the National Association of Realtors has determined that less than 15% of Americans would prefer living in an apartment or condominium with 86 percent listing "privacy from neighbors" as an important factor in choosing residency.  We as a society should consider the will of the generations carrying these debt burdens.  Will they find such accommodations any more inviting than the current generation? Perhaps one might ask their children or grandchildren if they might like to live in a transit oriented, "walkable" community.  It is they who will be paying for it for decades to come.  Is it moral to bind them to this future with debt without their consent?

Affordable Housing No Square Deal from Depot Planners

 The Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agency's Housing Report
outlines the State of Connecticut's  recipe for economic growth;   "...should transit service improve radically, opportunities shall arise."    The report relates the development of both transportation infrastructure and adjacent housing options and addresses it's implied  effect on the region's economy.    The final pages in the CCRPA Housing report summarize in similarity to the Central CT Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy,  The State of CT Plan of Conservation and Development , The State of CT Consolidated Housing Plan  and Bristol's 2013-2014 Housing Action Plan.  All of these documents suggest housing and business development be concentrated along transit corridors.  The study suggests a lack of public transportation options places otherwise independent individuals in situations of fiscal distress and that lower transportation costs make housing more affordable.  The $340 million+ CTFastrak busway project which will require $9 million/year in subsidies is touted therein as a much necessary project which could spur such economic growth.

 Bristol, CT is specifically named in the report as a future Transit Oriented Development zone, with 1,000 future housing units having such a designation.

The CT DOT's current rail study is also mentioned regarding the possibility of extending the Waterbury Branch of recently plagued Metro North to Bristol's Depot Square.  The report also goes into detail regarding the Bristol's Housing Authority not meeting the needs of Section 8 applicants by HUD's standards.

Subsidies will undoubtedly be the avenue to pave the way for such progressive development endeavors as any private investment is reliant on such partnerships.   The Department of Transportation estimates public transportation subsidies at anywhere from $2.50 to $42 dollars per ride depending on the mode and length of travel.   Providing transportation subsidies to financially distressed individuals to make housing more affordable most obviously leaves no net gain to the equation.  Such keynesian economic strategies reliant on deficit spending and continual subsidies are simply not productive at stimulating economic growth as they burden residents with decades of interest payments on the debt that absorbs what would otherwise be free capital.   Perhaps those involved in the decision making process should be using unbiased resources, rather than the data provided by the Center for Neighborhood Technology's Housing and Transportation Affordability, when contemplating the economic benefits of such transformative projects.  A more comprehensive study, completed by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco members, titled
Roads to Prosperity of Bridges to Nowhere? , Theory and Evidence on the Impact of Public Infrastructure Investment" thoroughly analyzes the macroeconomic data of such investments without focusing strictly on the socioeconomic aspects of low income residency.

  It is important for community leaders to make a balanced assessment of economic investments or municipalities can find themselves in the heart of a newly constructed center of urban decay.  As taxes and regulations have continually increased in the region since 2007, median income has been in decline.    Such deficit spending would inevitably push even more of the middle class below the poverty level.  In this regard, instead of providing options and opportunities, it will severely limit choices.  Future generation's quality of life will be diminished as more Americans will be added to the class of those who cannot afford  personal transportation or will find their American Dream a modular shell of a home, as recommended by the planners themselves in the report.

CTFastrak- Coming to A Downtown Near You!

The CTFastrak is part of the Bristol to Hartford corridor of the state's adopted  Transit Oriented Development strategy.   This New Urbanism style of development is part of the state's Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. The segment from New Britain to Hartford has been mostly constructed and has signage and some signaling up at the East Main Street stop, which has been mostly completed. I find it ironic that the state's planners' purported goal is to expand transportation options, yet the two lane road that they built is closed to private motor vehicles.

As you can plainly see, what some planners, powerful special interest groups and politicians have considered reasonable "for the greater good" is something that most would consider completely unreasonable.

Fairview Cemetery is now an oxymoron because there is nothing fair about what I see here. I suppose it is easier for some to justify such action without a personal attachment to the deceased in such a situation.

That's what I would classify as encroaching of the rights of the deceased. One has to ask themselves, "Where is the shame of these individuals?". How could someone try to justify such action? Would planning a few signs displaying the Fastrak design with a few plugs for the new services in the middle of the cemetery help public perception or would it be adding more insult to injury?

Adjacent St. Mary's Cemetery has concrete barrier walls from the CTFastrak only a few feet away from headstones.   I can only imagine what it must be like kneeling in somber reflection of loved ones and have your hair whipped across your face by a passing public transit vehicle speeding through.  Most cemeteries have strict speed limits enforced not only for safety but in respect for the deceased.  How fast will the Express Bus be flying through? 

Of course, the deceased cannot defend themselves from a progressive project invading their grave sites any more than the average citizen who stands alone. The use of eminent domain in Connecticut has recently risen in use when it comes to transportation. One can only hope for their constitutionally protected rights of just compensation to be upheld. Unfortunately, in the real world those rights have been trampled upon over and over. Connecticut is ripe with several pending legal battles because the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights is commonly ignored by oathbreakers in black robes. Bristol is no stranger to these circumstances and as top-down comprehensive land planning comes to the forefront of Connecticut's Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy through the power of the purse, one can only expect abuses to become more rampant.

In addition to cutting through and confiscating private property without fair compensation, properties are now in constant need of continual maintenance as a result of the busway. Property owners face stiff fines as many municipalities impose blight threats on those who do not keep up with the continual graffiti and gang tags increased by the new construction.

Most business owners are unwilling to speak out against city government for fear of retribution.  Frank conversations are however very revealing of their sentiments.


Even the new Fastrak construction has seen more than it's fair share of "blight" before even opening!

Such is the Association of Blight, Rail and Mass Transit

Most municipalities find it just as difficult to practice what they preach, however expanding transit options for the designated Despot Square will only amplify these issues. The 2015 Service Plan designates an hourly express bus will leave Bristol's new Intermodal Transportation Hub and later travel via the guideway, arriving in Hartford in 57 minutes.  As you can see, the views are really something!

The results of the CT Rail Study have yet to be revealed but the long standing plans for subsidized parking garages on Bristol's former mall site remain.  One is truly left to wonder what is happening behind the scenes in that respect.   As it would appear, the State of Connecticut and a public-private partnership is looking to establish a critical mass of transit ridership in addition to building a base of captive customers in Bristol's downtown.  Presumably, these density downtown dwellers will be without automobiles and will remain within the transit corridor and walking distance from it and their disposable income will be primarily spent within that region.  The targets for carbon emission reduction is precisely why the Environmental Protection Agency provides federal grant monies to Transit Oriented Development projects.

Approx. 950 sq. ft units  incl. 2 baths at approx. $1,200/month

At any rate, the plan to build a habitat for a walking populace remains at large. I expect something more reflective of what is being built all along the CTFastrak transit corridor to be in Bristol's West End.

Perhaps inserting an image of a "vibrant" looking smartgrowth building in a picture of the Despot Lot may provide a more realistic vision of what is to come. One can only imagine what a "best case scenario" would look like moving forward in this direction.  Either representation follows rooftops or $6 million is "only the beginning". What does your instincts tell you?

Visit the CT Fast Track webpage by clicking (here)