STRONG INDUSTRY ATTENDANCE IS NEEDED AT A PRESS CONFERENCE
WITH GOVERNOR LAMONT AND MEMBERS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION
TODAY FRIDAY MARCH 1, 2019 8:30AM (PLEASE ARRIVE EARLY) BRIDGEPORT TRANSPORTATION CENTER
(IN THE LOBBY) 525 WATER STREET BRIDGEPORT
JOIN US AS WE KEEP THE MOMENTUM GOING FOR
TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS
Kevin Rennie: Raiding transportation fund spells trouble
Kevin Rennie
Gov. Ned Lamont is
Connecticut’s first governor with an advanced business degree. He attended the
Yale School of Management, class of 1980.
That background should be helpful to the Greenwich Democrat if he is to lead the state out of its long financial crisis. But the governor’s first budget proposal suggests intellectual consistency may not be a prerequisite for a Yale business degree.
Funding transportation projects has become a central goal of the new administration. Lamont used his February budget speech to announce his support for comprehensive tolls around the state on trucks and passenger vehicles, a stunning reversal of his campaign pledge to limit the levy to trucks.
Lamont wants to emphasize transportation improvements as a critical pillar in improving life in the state. Or he may not. There is a curious proposal in Lamont’s budget that indicates he is no different from any governor who came before him. He will play duplicitous games with transportation funding while mouthing customary platitudes.
Some of the tax collected on the sales of motor vehicles goes to the Special Transportation Fund. This year, it’s 8 percent of the total collected. The bipartisan budget that the legislature passed in 2017 raised that percentage each year until all of it would go the STF. By the 2023 budget, that would be almost $340 million. But the Lamont budget proposal demolishes that plan and removes about $1 billion from transportation projects to the state’s general fund over the next several years.
Only an amendment to the state constitution, which voters passed last fall protecting the STF, keeps Lamont from grabbing the 8 percent of the motor vehicle transfer tax that already goes to transportation.
It is a curious turn for a new governor who wants to make infrastructure projects a showcase of his administration. He raids the fund of billions in the long run while straining to convince drivers that they should support a vast plan for tolls that Lamont himself opposed a few months ago when he sought their votes.
Since Lamont’s plan for tolls will take years to implement if the legislature approves it, taking the motor vehicle sales tax money from the STF now will inflict a blow on repairing roads, and especially bridges, that require attention.
These grim divergences between rhetoric and action became commonplace under the Dannel P. Malloy administration, but it’s nothing close to what we expect of Lamont.
Tolls do seem to do their worst on the judgment of their supporters. Two state legislators provided a disturbing glimpse this week of the extremism that can infect toll boosters. State Representative Jason Rojas (D-East Hartford), co-chair of the influential finance committee, took to Twitter to promote the idea that town governments that oppose the Lamont toll proposal should be denied state aid transportation aid to their communities. That’s an ugly germ of a proposal that seeks to smother dissent and free speech.
Taken to its logical end, Rojas’s East Hartford would be denied state aid to its schools. East Hartford joined a lawsuit years ago that challenged the state formula for funding schools. East Hartford’s school superintendent, Nathan Quesnel, was a central but ultimately not helpful witness in the litigation that nearly brought education apartheid to the state’s disabled children.
East Hartford and its fellow plaintiffs sought billions more in state funding for their schools. The state’s highest court overturned their trial court victory, keeping funding decisions in the legislature and accountable to the public. Under the Rojas standard, towns that dare to challenge state funding decisions would face dire, punitive consequences.
Freshman state Sen. Alexandra Bergstein, D-Greenwich, revealed her authoritarian instinct by praising Rojas’s appalling idea. Bergstein favoring a crippling punishment for dissent is no surprise to anyone who has watched her young tenure in public office. She’s issued a stringent set of rules for constituents who attend her local forums. At one event in Stamford, the police were on hand to confiscate signs locals brought to express their opposition to tolls.
Bergstein has said more than once that she thinks a highway, I-95, is our state’s greatest asset. I dissent. Our children, of course, and fidelity to democratic norms remain our vital treasures. I’ll take the risk that the street I live in will still be plowed this winter despite disagreeing with those two legislative bullies.
Key legislative committee moves forward on casino expansionThat background should be helpful to the Greenwich Democrat if he is to lead the state out of its long financial crisis. But the governor’s first budget proposal suggests intellectual consistency may not be a prerequisite for a Yale business degree.
Funding transportation projects has become a central goal of the new administration. Lamont used his February budget speech to announce his support for comprehensive tolls around the state on trucks and passenger vehicles, a stunning reversal of his campaign pledge to limit the levy to trucks.
Lamont wants to emphasize transportation improvements as a critical pillar in improving life in the state. Or he may not. There is a curious proposal in Lamont’s budget that indicates he is no different from any governor who came before him. He will play duplicitous games with transportation funding while mouthing customary platitudes.
Some of the tax collected on the sales of motor vehicles goes to the Special Transportation Fund. This year, it’s 8 percent of the total collected. The bipartisan budget that the legislature passed in 2017 raised that percentage each year until all of it would go the STF. By the 2023 budget, that would be almost $340 million. But the Lamont budget proposal demolishes that plan and removes about $1 billion from transportation projects to the state’s general fund over the next several years.
Only an amendment to the state constitution, which voters passed last fall protecting the STF, keeps Lamont from grabbing the 8 percent of the motor vehicle transfer tax that already goes to transportation.
It is a curious turn for a new governor who wants to make infrastructure projects a showcase of his administration. He raids the fund of billions in the long run while straining to convince drivers that they should support a vast plan for tolls that Lamont himself opposed a few months ago when he sought their votes.
Since Lamont’s plan for tolls will take years to implement if the legislature approves it, taking the motor vehicle sales tax money from the STF now will inflict a blow on repairing roads, and especially bridges, that require attention.
These grim divergences between rhetoric and action became commonplace under the Dannel P. Malloy administration, but it’s nothing close to what we expect of Lamont.
Tolls do seem to do their worst on the judgment of their supporters. Two state legislators provided a disturbing glimpse this week of the extremism that can infect toll boosters. State Representative Jason Rojas (D-East Hartford), co-chair of the influential finance committee, took to Twitter to promote the idea that town governments that oppose the Lamont toll proposal should be denied state aid transportation aid to their communities. That’s an ugly germ of a proposal that seeks to smother dissent and free speech.
Taken to its logical end, Rojas’s East Hartford would be denied state aid to its schools. East Hartford joined a lawsuit years ago that challenged the state formula for funding schools. East Hartford’s school superintendent, Nathan Quesnel, was a central but ultimately not helpful witness in the litigation that nearly brought education apartheid to the state’s disabled children.
East Hartford and its fellow plaintiffs sought billions more in state funding for their schools. The state’s highest court overturned their trial court victory, keeping funding decisions in the legislature and accountable to the public. Under the Rojas standard, towns that dare to challenge state funding decisions would face dire, punitive consequences.
Freshman state Sen. Alexandra Bergstein, D-Greenwich, revealed her authoritarian instinct by praising Rojas’s appalling idea. Bergstein favoring a crippling punishment for dissent is no surprise to anyone who has watched her young tenure in public office. She’s issued a stringent set of rules for constituents who attend her local forums. At one event in Stamford, the police were on hand to confiscate signs locals brought to express their opposition to tolls.
Bergstein has said more than once that she thinks a highway, I-95, is our state’s greatest asset. I dissent. Our children, of course, and fidelity to democratic norms remain our vital treasures. I’ll take the risk that the street I live in will still be plowed this winter despite disagreeing with those two legislative bullies.
Christopher Keating
Legislators have clashed sharply over potential casino expansion in
Connecticut, but they joined together Thursday to help push two competing bills
forward.Lawmakers have essentially split into two groups on the issue: those
favoring a satellite casino in East Windsor that would be built jointly by the
Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan tribes, and those calling for a new casino and
hotel complex on the waterfront in Bridgeport being proposed by MGM Resorts
International.In a compromise, the legislature’s public safety committee voted
unanimously Thursday to draft separate bills, one that would streamline the
process for the East Windsor project and another that would create a
competitive bidding process for the state’s third casino. Those backing the
Bridgeport project support the open bidding bill.For years, lawmakers have
fought bitterly in the high-stakes battle over casino expansion. MGM has spent
millions in Connecticut pushing the Bridgeport project and trying to block the
East Windsor casino. The project at a former movie theater complex off I-91 has
become stalled awaiting federal approval. The East Windsor bill would remove
the requirement, included in prior state legislation, of federal approval for
the project to move forward. Sen. Tony Hwang, the top Senate Republican on the
committee, voted in favor of drafting both bills, but said he might vote
against both of them in a subsequent committee vote. A gambling opponent, Hwang
said the state often fails to calculate the societal costs of bankruptcies and
family disruptions that are caused by problem gambling.“I think we should
proceed cautiously,” Hwang, of Fairfield, said in an interview. “I reserve the
right to vote no.”During the committee meeting, several lawmakers stressed that
their “yes” votes on Thursday were only in favor of drafting the bills and not
related to the merits. Rep. Carol Hall, a Republican who represents Enfield and
East Windsor, said she “probably will be voting no” on the Bridgeport proposal and
yes on the “extremely important” East Windsor plan.Rep. Joe Verrengia, a West
Hartford Democrat who co-chairs the committee, said a public hearing on the
East Windsor and competitive-bidding bills will be held March 12 as the
committee heads toward a deadline of March 21 to act on the measures. He said
his goal is to pass both bills out of the committee so the issues can be
debated by the full House of Representatives and Senate in the coming months.“There’s
still a lot of work to do,” Verrengia said.The House passed a
competitive-bidding casino bill last year in a bipartisan 77-73 vote, but the
bill was never debated in the Senate, where supporters of the East Windsor
project prevailed.At stake are hundreds of millions of dollars of dollars the
state receives annually from slot machines the two tribes operate at the
Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods casinos. The tribes have said allowing a commercial
casino operator into the state would violate decades-old compacts for gambling
exclusivity and mean they would no longer have to pay the state the slot
revenue, which is projected at $250 million in the current fiscal year.
Brian Lockhart
BRIDGEPORT — Local developer John Guedes’ plans to build 92 market-rate downtown apartments and ground-level retail space on currently city-owned property is just the beginning.“My ultimate goal is to put together a minimum of 350 units, residential,” Guedes told a pair of City Council committees Wednesday before members voted to approve the sale of the three parcels on Congress and Main streets. “This is the first step of that vision.”
Councilwoman Jeanette Herron, a co chairman of the contracts committee, wondered whether the city was too focused on increasing the housing stock and not providing enough amenities, like a grocery store.
Ripka’s, the market and cafe that, when it opened in mid-2013, was heralded as a sign the downtown was thriving, closed at the end of that year.
“We need residential,” Herron said. “But how are we developing downtown with business?”“The market failed because there weren’t enough mouths,” William Coleman, the city’s deputy director of economic development, told the contracts and economic development committees. Downtown needs more residents, he said.
“We want the young professionals, the empty-nesters,” Guedes added later. “You’re not going to create commercial or retail areas without having people that will stay downtown.”
Tax-break trade-off
Guedes’ family-operated, Noble Avenue-based company, Primrose, was selected last September by Mayor Joe Ganim’s administration to develop the lots at 192 and 199 Congress St. and 1269 Main St. Guedes had actually approached City Hall a few months earlier, prompting the decision to issue a request for proposals. Primrose and other firms responded, with Guedes’ $17 million plan winning out.
It has been dubbed Congress Plaza Commons by the city.
Coleman on Wednesday said some of the land in question has been owned by Bridgeport since 1975 — “and since 1975 they have produced zero in taxes,” he told the council.
Guedes is to pay $575,000, the appraised value of the three lots, and receive what Coleman called “ a very modest” tax incentive.
Under that deal, each of the 92 units is to be initially be taxed $1,500, rather than the full rate of $4,200. Primrose’s tax bill will be $23,583 for the first three years. It will then increase to $138,000 for four years, rise to $140,760 and $143,575, and by year 10, the developer must pay the full taxes — $146,447.
That decade worth of revenue, combined with $180,000 in building and permit fees, adds up to over $1.2 million.
“Compared to nothing, that’s going on there, it’s an improvement,” Coleman said.“This is a pretty big (tax) break,” said Councilman Kyle Langan.
Who will build it?
Guedes, who has recently been building in downtown Shelton, said Bridgeport needs to offer tax incentives because of the city’s high tax rate, which is over 54 mills, combined with modest rents.
“The difference between developing in Shelton and Bridgeport is Shelton has a 21-mill rate (and) downtown Shelton is still 20 percent higher in rents than Bridgeport,” Guedes said.
“I commend you guys because you’re investing,” Herron said. “Thank you for that.”
Guedes’ tax breaks mark the second time the Ganim administration has brokered a deal since a divided council in late 2017 relinquished its authority to vote on those incentives. Councilman Ernie Newton was a critic of that decision, but on Wednesday said he was satisfied with having developers and city staff thoroughly explain the tax incentives.
Asked if Congress Plaza Commons will be union built, Guedes said “We need to bring these projects in at the best price we can. ... Union or nonunion, you’re welcome to bid (on the subcontracting).”
That satisfied some council members like Newton who have been pressuring developers to hire local, minority-owned help. But Langan worried that non-union workers would receive less on-the-job protection and benefits.
Councilman Michael DeFilippo told Langan builders have federal oversight.
“It’s called OSHA,” DeFilippo said, referring to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Downtown developer Phil Kuchma, who has revitalized much of Fairfield Avenue, was present Wednesday and urged the council to support Congress Plaza Commons. He said most recent downtown developments have been renovations of old structures, and that can actually hurt the perception of the area.
“There hasn’t been a new building built in downtown in four years,” Kuchma said. “We need another new building built.”
Construction on former Elmcrest property may start in April
Jeff Mill
PORTLAND - Town officials say they expect construction of Brainerd Place, the mixed-use project approved for the former Elmcrest property, to begin as early as April An associate of developer Daniel Bertram last week filed a traffic approval report from the Office of the State Traffic Authority in the Town Clerk’s office. She also presented a $150 check to Clerk Ryan J. Curley, the cost of having the approval (and three maps of the property) entered into the town’s land records.
That opens the way for the state to issue a certificate of occupancy for the $30 million project.
The project calls for construction of 240 one- and two-bedroom residential units and 57,000 square feet of retail/commercial space.
Within the next 90 days, Bertram is expected to submit plans for Phase I of the project.
The first phase will involve the renovation of the historic Brainerd and Sage houses and construction of both Building E and a retail anchor store that will be located at the northwest corner of the property, according to Mary D. Dickerson, the town’s economic development coordinator.
Bertram also plans new roads within the 14.7-acre site as well as outlining the removal of old underground infrastructure and its replacement with 21st century upgrades, she said.Several out-buildings will be also demolished as part of the project.
The property abounds in underground infrastructure, Dickerson said, that includes piping for water and sewage as well as cisterns. They will have to be removed and replaced with new piping for water and sewers as well as conduits for “electricity and technology cables,” she explained.
The mixed-use Building E will have 102 one- and two-bedroom residential units that will sit atop retail space. The anchor store that will sit at the corner of Main and Marlborough streets is expected to be a pharmacy, Dickerson said.
While she would not be more specific, the website for the Atlantic Realty, the company that has been hired to find retail tenants for the project, says it will be a CVS pharmacy.
“The project is moving ahead as expected,” Dickerson said this week. “I’m excited that we’ll see the building plans within the next 90 days.”
Dickerson said she is particularly excited to see that work has been scheduled to upgrade the historic 19th century Brainerd and Sage houses.
First Selectwoman Susan S. Bransfield, who has worked for more than a decade to bring the project to Portland, said she was “happy to hear” the plans for Phase I could be in officials’ hands just as spring arrives.