Senate adopts budget that paves way for $3.5T spending plan
Caitlin Emma and Jennifer Scholtes
Senate Democrats adopted a budget
measure early Wednesday morning to deliver their next filibuster-proof ticket
to passing major legislation against the will of their GOP colleagues.
After more than 14 hours of continuous amendment votes, the
chamber adopted on party lines a 92-page framework for Democrats’ $3.5 trillion
package of climate and social initiatives, including subsidized child care,
expanded Medicare and paid family and medical leave benefits. Once both
chambers have approved the budget instructions, it will unlock the
reconciliation process, which empowers the majority party to eventually clear
the final bill with just 51 votes in the Senate, rather than the usual 60-vote
hurdle.
After the 50-49 vote Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck
Schumer called the move “a massive step towards restoring the middle class” and
giving “more Americans the chance to get there.”
“Democrats have labored for months to reach this point, and
there are many labors to come. But I can say with absolute certainty that it
will be worth doing,” Schumer said. “The Democratic budget will bring a
generational transformation to how our economy works for average Americans.”
The final Senate vote Wednesday on the budget resolution,
which concluded just before 4 a.m., followed a classic vote-a-rama — an
amendment barrage that allows the GOP to force the majority party into a series
of uncomfortable votes. To make their Democratic colleagues suffer for
sidelining GOP input on the $3.5 trillion plan, Republican senators called for
dozens of amendment votes on issues like critical race theory, defunding the
police, immigration enforcement and using federal money to cover abortions.
Senators even had extra padding on their chairs to make the
ordeal more comfortable, as they sat through the last major legislative hurrah
before departing for the August recess, which was already supposed to be
underway.
More than three dozen Democrats joined with Republicans in a
88-11 vote to adopt a nonbinding amendment that supports barring immigrants
from being transported from the border unless they test negative for Covid.
“We have a super-spreader event at our southern border every
single day,” said Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), the amendment’s author. “It
is unacceptable for the government to be transporting illegal migrants who pose
a grave risk of transmitting Covid across our nation.”
The Senate rejected an amendment by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas),
however, that called for “expulsions” of immigrants “who may contribute to the
spread” of Covid. The chamber also batted down a proposal from Sen. Chuck
Grassley (R-Iowa) that called for denying U.S. resident status to immigrants
who have criminal records. Both of those amendments fell 49-50, with all
Democrats opposed.
The amendment marathon was the Senate’s third this year,
after Democrats deployed the reconciliation process to pass Biden’s $1.9
trillion pandemic relief package in March.
The latest torment follows the long-awaited release of Democrats’ $3.5 trillion
budget framework on Monday — a price tag that might ultimately have to come
down to appease Senate moderates.
Before the $3.5 trillion plan can be sent off to Biden in
the coming months, the Senate will have to endure at least one more
vote-a-rama. That task could potentially be more painful than the amendment
spree this week, since trillions of dollars in Democratic priorities will be
closer to the finish line and senators will be proposing tweaks to a much
fuller legislative text than the budget framework currently under
consideration.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), speaking on the floor for the
first time since his breakthrough Covid infection, said the $3.5 trillion plan
is “a dream for those who want to socialize” the United States and that
“America as we know it is at risk in this budget resolution.”
After midnight, the Senate voted 50-49 to adopt an amendment
by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) to take a stance against teaching "critical
race theory" in schools. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) joined Republicans in
voting in support of that proposal.
Democrats joined Republicans in unanimously adopting a
non-binding provision, offered by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), to reject any
effort under the Green New Deal that would “ship” U.S. jobs overseas, send
electricity and gas prices “soaring” or make the nation “increasingly dependent
on foreign supply chains.”
Senate Budget Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said he had “no
problem” supporting the GOP amendment because it “has nothing to do with the
Green New Deal!”
Democrats sidestepped more drama by unanimously backing a
Republican amendment from Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) that opposed defunding
the police. In a moment of levity before the vote, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)
voiced enthusiastic approval, stressing that all senators should go on the
record about their support for funding the police, their belief “in God,
country and apple pie.”
In the same vein, nearly every Democrat backed a GOP
amendment that would prohibit tax hikes in violation of Biden’s pledge to not
raise taxes on people making less than $400,000 per year.
The Senate narrowly adopted a Republican messaging amendment
aimed at preserving a longstanding ban on federal funding for abortion, which
House Democrats eliminated from their annual spending bills this year. Manchin,
a longtime supporter of the so-called Hyde amendment, was the only Democrat to
break ranks and support the provision.
Lawmakers unanimously adopted a provision from Senate
Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) that targets a Democratic plan to go after
dynastic wealth. The amendment opposes an end to the tax exemption that allows
the wealthy to pass assets on to heirs tax-free by forgiving capital gains
taxes on things like company stock and land when people die. The Biden
administration is proposing to allow farms and small businesses to postpone
paying the tax until the business or farm is sold or ceases to be family-owned
and operated.
"Changing this would hit generations in rural
communities and force families to pay off part of the farm or business to pay
the new tax,” Thune said.
Every senator also backed an amendment from Sen. Amy
Klobuchar (D-Minn.) that seeks to recognize the law enforcement officers who
fought and died protecting the Capitol Building during the Jan. 6 insurrection.
In addition to the death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick following the
attack, four law enforcement officers who responded to the Capitol that day
have since died by suicide.
"The insurrection at the Capitol was more than an
assault on Democracy," Klobuchar said on the floor, "it was an actual
life-or-death situation for the many brave law enforcement officers who show up
here to work every single day."
Earlier Tuesday, the Senate voted 69-30 to pass a $550
billion bipartisan infrastructure bill. Democratic leaders have pledged to move
the infrastructure package and their party-line reconciliation measure along
two tracks at the same time, tying together the success of both bills.
Democrats’ multitrillion-dollar spending package would
bolster Medicare to cover vision, dental and hearing benefits for seniors. It
aims to extend Medicaid to Americans in Republican-led states that have refused
to expand the health program for low-income individuals. And it would keep new
Obamacare subsidies, too, and make in-home care available to more people.
To help offset the cost of the plan, Democrats are proposing
to raise taxes on top earners, corporations, overseas profits and capital
gains.
The measure also instructs the Senate Judiciary Committee to
find a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. That directive could
ultimately run into resistance from the Senate parliamentarian — the upper
chamber’s procedural referee — who will decide which provisions pass muster
with certain reconciliation restrictions.
Democrats did not include a debt ceiling increase in their
budget resolution, instead daring Republicans to reject a bipartisan solution
to the cap on the nation’s borrowing authority. In a letter released on
Tuesday, 46 Senate Republicans promised to oppose a debt limit hike.
The Treasury Department is expected to run out of money
sometime from September to November.
Biden's $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill could take years to transform U.S.
Jeff Stein and Michael Laris, The Washington Post
WASHINGTON - It has taken years for Congress to finally get
behind its long-imagined goal of legislation to upgrade the nation's ailing
infrastructure. And even if signed into law this fall, it could take many more
still for Americans to feel its full impact.
While President Joe Biden's stimulus plan delivered tangible
economic benefits to most of the country within weeks, key parts of the
infrastructure plan the Senate passed on Tuesday morning may take the better
part of a decade to come to fruition. The proposal must still clear the House of
Representatives.
Substantial pots of funding are likely to be quickly
disbursed, particularly for updating existing projects, such as repaving the
nation's roads. But major public works projects often have to go through a
lengthy process - from federal agency to locality to private builder - and may
not result in new usable infrastructure for years.
The long-term nature of the benefits may push completion of
many of its projects into the next administration, which could complicate who
receives its political benefits. The White House maintains the package will
create both short-term and lasting economic benefits for the nation, and
pointed to polls showing it is widely popular among voters of both parties.
Through a separate process known as reconciliation, the
administration is also moving toward delivering a major expansion of immediate
economic benefits ahead of the 2022 midterm election, including continuing a
new child benefit for 90% of American parents that was launched in the stimulus
and new Medicare benefits for tens of millions of American seniors. The
reconciliation package could pass this fall with a slew of additional federal
benefits, such as tuition-free community college and universal prekindergarten.
Of the infrastructure legislation's $566 billion in new
spending, only about $20 billion will be spent by the end of fiscal year 2022,
according to estimates based on Congressional Budget Office reports by Marc
Goldwein, senior vice president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal
Budget, a nonpartisan think tank, and Donald Schneider, who served as an
economist for Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee. The fiscal
year 2022 ends right before the 2022 midterm elections.
Roughly $125 billion, or about a quarter of the funding, will
go out by September 2024 - right ahead of the 2024 presidential elections,
Goldwein and Schneider have found. Annual federal spending from the bill ramps
up from there in fiscal years 2025, 2026 and 2027.
Those allocations represent only when the money is
disbursed, but in some cases states will be able to start spending funding with
the expectation they will later be reimbursed by the federal government. These
numbers do not include an extension of highway and transit funding that was
already expected to occur before the infrastructure bill, although its
extension is included as part of the package.
"It's going to be a real challenge to get political
credit for projects that get finished three, four or five years from now, and
that's when the bulk of the projects will be completed," said Mark Zandi,
chief economist at Moody's Analytics. "We're talking about a lot of
long-lived projects - broadband, power infrastructure, water systems, even
public transit and rail - and that's going to take awhile to go from start to
end."
The infrastructure bill devotes billions of dollars to
pillars of the American economy that many experts believe are in dire need of
repair - highways, roads, bridges, water systems, and commuter and passenger
rail lines.
Jim Tymon, executive director of American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, said that if Congress passes the
bill, money will start through existing federal channels to states and cities
as soon as October.
"There's enough out there that's ready to go that the
impact will be felt pretty quickly," Tymon said. "They're ready to .
. . take those dollars and convert them into projects that are going to make a
real difference in people's quality of life."
Even before the money goes out the door, it will set plans
in motion that Biden officials can seize on as evidence that their investments
are producing results. And there are important policy justifications for taking
time to ensure the funding is spent appropriately, experts say.
Tymon said a second tranche will take more time, such as
spurring the development of electric-vehicle charging stations. States also
operate on multiyear plans for their more ambitious initiatives, he said.
"Having the predictability of 5 years of federal
funding allows them to develop those plans" more strategically, Tymon
said, "rather than having to react on a year-to-year basis" depending
on the whims of Washington. Practically speaking, that could mean moving major
projects up "to year 3 or 4, rather than 7 or 8," of a long-term
plan, he said.
Ray LaHood, President Barack Obama's first transportation
secretary, said there are vast and complex projects that will extend over
years, such as a new train tunnel under the Hudson River connecting New Jersey
and Penn Station in Manhattan, known as the Gateway Program, or major bridge
replacements. But, LaHood added, there is also a pipeline of road, transit and
other projects that states can jump on quickly, making a swift impact.
In many cases, the necessary environmental documents are
already in hand, he said. When construction season begins in earnest next year
in states with tough winter weather, and earlier in places like Arizona and
Florida, "you're going to see hundreds and hundreds of orange cones going
up all over the country, where workers are going to be repaving roads and
building bridges, and that process is a long-standing partnership with the
governors."
"Many of these states are just one big pothole,"
LaHood said, and governors are primed to make repairs. Amtrak has projects
ready to go now, as do transit systems, he said.
White House spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement that
the infrastructure agreement would fulfill the president's campaign promise
"by achieving progress in almost every major area it touches within a
year," including roads and bridges, transit, high-speed internet and clean
energy.
"These investments will pay off for American families
in the short, medium, and long run - even for decades to come and the next
generation, just like the Transcontinental Railroad and the interstate highway
system," Bates said.
Still, prior efforts to revamp the nation's infrastructure
offer cautionary tales. In 2009, Obama approved infrastructure legislation that
sent $3.5 billion to California for high-speed rail funding intended to
transform how residents travel. About 12 years later, California travelers can
point to little that has changed in their daily lives beyond intensified
bickering among local officials over how to proceed.
The project has been bogged down by a lengthy construction
process, in part due to U.S. inexperience constructing high-speed rail and
because federal dollars forced the state to start construction before all the
necessary land had been acquired. Forcing the rail line to go via a more
populated but less direct north-south route appeared to appease political
demands but delayed construction.
"We barely have 100 miles to show for it and even
that's not really to completion," said Ethan Elkind, director of the
climate program at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law Center
for Law, Energy & the Environment.
The bipartisan infrastructure bill earmarks $66 billion for
passenger and freight rail - funding for which high-speed rail projects are
expected to be eligible to apply. Elkind said the new rail funding will take
years to translate into tangible improvements, arguing the projects require
excessive environmental site reviews.
"Planning alone often can take minimum a couple of
years, but often longer than that, particularly if there's litigation,"
Elkind said. "These projects take way too long to build - sometimes
decades - so that is a real problem, even if the investments are
worthwhile."
Some analysts also said the gradual spending path makes
sense, given concerns that too much government spending is causing inflation in
the current economy. Critics have already accused Democrats of pouring too much
new federal funding into the economy through the $1.9 trillion stimulus plan.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, one of the Republicans backing the
legislation, recently defended the legislation from critics by pointing out
"it's not money that will be spent next year" and that projects may
last 10 to 15 years before their completion.
Some experts contended Congress may be missing an
opportunity to improve the process and speed for building infrastructure in the
United States.
Compared with other rich European countries, the United
States spends up to five times as much on similar infrastructure projects,
according to a report by the Niskanen Center, a libertarian leaning think tank.
Rail transit costs about 50% more on a per-mile basis to
build in the United States compared with global peers, while tunneled projects
take nearly a year-and-a-half longer to build, the Eno Center for
Transportation, a nonpartisan think tank, has found.
Some proposed changes, like improving state project
selection decisions, were largely left out of the Senate's agreement. It is
unclear how or if the legislation will change when it reaches the House of
Representatives.
"They negotiated over what to spend money on, but there
has been virtually no attention paid to how the U.S. actually does
infrastructure," said Sam Hammond, a policy expert at the Niskanen Center.
"They're pouring money at particular projects, but aren't taking this as
an opportunity to do deeper structural reforms needed to ensure you get bang
for your buck. As we know from Obama's 2009 recovery act, you can come up with
the money for a wish list of projects but that does not mean they come to
fruition."
Other experts contend the lack of funding - partially
addressed by the bill - has proved the real obstacle to completing
infrastructure projects. Lawmakers should also be wary about building too
quickly without proper environmental review, an omission that could in
particular harm poor and minority communities, said Kevin DeGood, an
infrastructure expert at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think
tank.
"These investments will work their way through our
system over 5 to 10 years, and that won't really be an arc of time that people
will register," DeGood said. "But the overarching stumbling block to
project completion is money. On the public infrastructure side, the handicap
has been lack of funding."
Either way, the backlog of new funding could take time to
clear. For instance, $15 billion in new federal funding to replace the nation's
lead service water pipelines will be allocated to the states' drinking water
revolving funds. If a state already has replacement projects underway that are
pending - such as Illinois - the money can be disbursed relatively quickly. But
about 40 states have not conducted a formal survey to estimate how many lead
service lines they have in operation, a step that would help expedite their
access to funding for replacements.
"In 40 states, they do not have a good handle on how
many lead service lines they have and so the money won't go out the door
quickly," said Erik Olson, a water infrastructure expert at the Natural
Resources Defense Council. "It will take some time, though we don't know
how long."
John Porcari, a former deputy U.S. transportation secretary
who was interim executive director of the Gateway project, said projects like
repaving roads or working on storm drains will have immediate positive impacts
on communities and employment.
"But no one would argue those are transformative
projects," said Porcari, who led Maryland's transportation department and
is now managing partner of infrastructure consulting firm 3P Enterprises.
For those bigger efforts, "philosophically, everybody
needs to understand that you break ground on projects other people finish, and
you cut ribbons on projects other people have started for you," Porcari
said. "We're living off assets our great grandparents bought and paid for.
It's time for us to pay it forward. Who gets the credit should be a secondary
concern."
It's now Pelosi's move on bipartisan roads bill
Mike Lillis and Scott Wong
The Senate's approval of a massive infrastructure bill on
Tuesday sends the proposal to the House - and confronts Speaker Nancy Pelosi
(D-Calif.) with some tricky questions over how to proceed.
Already, Pelosi is facing competing pressure from moderate
Democrats, who want a quick vote to notch a big bipartisan win, and liberals,
who want to sit on the bill until the Senate passes an even larger social
benefits package, a tactic that Pelosi has enthusiastically endorsed.
House leaders took the unexpected step Tuesday of cutting
their seven-week recess short, with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)
announcing in a letter to lawmakers that the chamber will return to session on
Aug. 23 to consider the larger Democratic package, assuming Senate adoption
this week.
That increases the odds of House passage of the
infrastructure bill sooner rather than later, but it doesn't shut the door on
another group of powerful voices urging the Speaker to reject the Senate
infrastructure bill as it stands, and force conference talks between the two
chambers.
That's a risky strategy, given the long, delicate nature of
the Senate negotiations and the necessity of Republican support for the final
product.
But it's also an approach that had powerful advocates,
including Hoyer and Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), the chairman of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. DeFazio has been highly critical
of Democrats in the Senate and White House for excluding climate provisions
contained in his House-passed bill - an argument likely to gain steam in the
wake of a new United Nations report warning of the existential threat posed by
global warming.
"Unfortunately, this package falls short when it comes
to addressing climate change like the existential threat it is, and the world's
scientists only reinforced the need for additional action in the IPCC's latest
alarming report," DeFazio said Tuesday in a statement. He did not mention
a conference but vowed to continue pressing for "transformational funding
and policies" to reduce transportation pollution in phase two of the
Democrats' infrastructure plan.
Tuesday's Senate vote approving the bipartisan agreement
lends enormous momentum to the roughly $1 trillion infrastructure package,
which stands among President Biden's most pressing domestic priorities. And
within minutes of the successful Senate vote, two groups of House moderates
called on Pelosi and other Democratic leaders to bring the legislation to the
floor immediately.
Eight moderates, led by Problem Solvers Caucus co-Chairman
Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), wrote in a letter to Pelosi that "we must bring
this bipartisan infrastructure bill to the House floor for a standalone
vote" without any strings attached to the larger $3.5 trillion package.
"After years of waiting, we cannot afford unnecessary
delays to finally deliver on a physical infrastructure package," wrote the
moderate Democrats, including Reps. Susie Lee (Nev.), Filemon Vela (Texas),
Henry Cuellar (Texas) and Jared Golden (Maine).
And the leaders of the Blue Dog Democrats issued a statement
echoing calls for a quick vote on the Senate-passed infrastructure package.
"The Co-Chairs of the Blue Dog Coalition remain opposed
to any effort to unnecessarily delay consideration of these critical
infrastructure investments, which will create good-paying jobs, keep American
businesses competitive, and grow our nation's economy," wrote Democratic
Reps. Tom O'Halleran (Ariz.), Ed Case (Hawaii), Stephanie Murphy (Fla.),
Abigail Spanberger (Va.) and Kurt Schrader (Ore.).
Pelosi, however, has telegraphed other plans, making clear
in recent weeks that she won't stage a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure
bill before the Senate adopts a second package amalgamating a long list of
Democratic priorities, including an expansion of safety net programs,
environmental protections, health care coverage and immigrant benefits.
The House would then vote afterward on both bills.
Speaking Tuesday at an event in San Francisco, Pelosi
praised the Senate for passing the bill. But she quickly emphasized that it falls
far short of what Biden and congressional Democrats intended when they launched
their infrastructure push, and she dismissed calls to vote on infrastructure
before the details of a reconciliation package emerge.
"Reconciliation will be a fuller reflection of our
values," she said.
Her message has heartened liberals in the caucus, who remain
distrustful of Senate moderates and want to use the infrastructure vote as
leverage to compel those senators to back the nascent second package. Because
the social benefits legislation is slated to move under special budget rules,
known as reconciliation, no Republican support will be needed to pass it
through the upper chamber provided all 50 members of the Democratic caucus
stick together.
"We have been clear for three months that we are not
going to vote for the bipartisan package unless there is a reconciliation
package that has passed, that includes sufficient funding for our five
priorities," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who heads the
Congressional Progressive Caucus. "That has been our position for three
months. It also became the position of the Speaker, and the Senate majority
leader, and so we're grateful for that.
"We need to deliver the entirety of these two packages
together."
Yet DeFazio has warned that crucial elements of his $715
billion water and transportation package, which the House passed last month,
will be lost if they're not incorporated into the bipartisan infrastructure
bill since the budget rules don't allow for policy changes to move through
reconciliation. He's sounding alarms that without those
"transformational" changes - including an aggressive shift toward
rail and mass transit - the Senate bill would simply ossify
"highway-centric" policies that have contributed heavily to
atmospheric carbon dioxide, thereby exacerbating the climate crisis.
"You can't make significant policy - you can't do the
things I'm going to do to make states look at alternatives to just paving
everything over - in the dead-guy rule. Robert Byrd would say no," a
frustrated DeFazio told reporters just before the recess. He was referring to
budget rules named after the late West Virginia senator - rules the
Transportation chairman abhors.
Hoyer, an institutionalist, has also endorsed the conference
strategy. And in the wake of Tuesday's Senate vote, some rank-and-file
Democrats are piling on, wary that the House is being trampled by the upper
chamber.
"The Senate #infrastructure bill is a step forward but
leaves out many House priorities, including member-designated projects,"
Rep. Dwight Evans (D-Pa.) tweeted. "I support @TransportDems Chairman
@RepPeterDeFazio's push for a House-Senate conference - the House is a co-equal
chamber."
Despite the grumbling from some liberals angry over the climate
exclusions and a host of conservative Republicans objecting to the levels of
new spending, the infrastructure package is expected to pass through the House
with bipartisan support.
It's unclear how many House Republicans would back the
proposal. But Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.), a prominent member of the Problem Solvers
group, suggested it would be a significant tally.
"It's a work in progress," he said, "but
we'll be there."
West Haven flexes development potential with Sawmill Road groundbreaking
WEST HAVEN — It’s a perfect example of the city’s economic
potential, according to officials.
City officials seized an opportunity to celebrate Tuesday at
a groundbreaking ceremony for a 24-hour 7-Eleven convenience store that will
have 20 gas pumps for passenger vehicles, and two counter-service restaurants.
“We talk about how West Haven has so much potential, and
this is our potential which wasn’t being used,” said Christine Gallo,
chairwoman of the West Haven Economic Development Commission.
The 480 Sawmill Road site has sat vacant for roughly 15
years, previously
having been a Staples office supply store until 2006. The building was
razed and now construction of a 5,635-square-foot building and 38 parking
spaces has begun.
Saw Mill WH LLC purchased 458 and 480 Sawmill Road for $3.6
million from previous owner West Haven Mall LLV on June 16.
Jed and Jack Hayes, father and son developer representatives
of project co-developer Sullivan Hayes, said West Haven is ideal for their
project because Sawmill Road is densely populated and also highly visible from
the highway.
Gallo said an estimated 120,000 cars pass by the location on
Interstate-95 daily, previously with nothing to attract people’s attention and
urge them to get off the highway.
The project is just one of several going on in West Haven:
In the last few months, the city has seen the sales or redevelopment of several
significant blighted or vacant properties — such as the
Savin Rock Plaza and Chick’s
Seafood Restaurant at the city’s shoreline, the proposed The Haven
luxury outlet project as well as the future 7-Eleven property.
Chick’s ran for 65
years serving split hot dogs, lobster rolls and fried seafood on the
city’s shoreline. The site was
sold for $1 million in July.
Mayor Nancy Rossi said the Sawmill Road development “brings
us closer to our economic development goals.”
In the past, Rossi has said she believes the recent
development interest in West Haven is tied to the city’s improving budgetary
situation.
Still, Rossi’s political opponents have said the last months
of big development announcements distract from more fundamental issues.
“I wish the new developers of the site great success.
Unfortunately, they are a rare exception to the many developers, property
owners and real estate agents I have spoken to most recently and over the last
couple of decades regarding how hard West Haven is to do business with,” said
Barry Lee Cohen, a Republican councilman running for mayor.
“We are known and continue to be known as the city of missed
opportunities,” he said. “And this will be my administration’s absolute top
priority: to ensure we are a city businesses and developers want to do business
with.”
Steven Mullins, who is working to petition his way onto the
ballot for a Republican primary against Cohen, said he believes the 7-Eleven
project is “a step in the right direction” but it was a citywide effort,
including the Planning and Zoning Commission, on which he serves as a
commissioner.
“For 15 years this city was desolate and depressing. Fifteen
years ago there was no reason to get off this exit,” Mullins said. “We can
still do better. The city has a lot of work to do.”
Rossi said when she took office in 2017 “the noose around my
neck was the economic condition” of the city.
“Developers and employees are not coming if you’re in poor
economic condition,” she said.
Rossi denied that any developer had expressed interest in
working with the city and subsequently walked away because the city was not
business-friendly enough. She said the speed with which the Sawmill Road
project is being developed is evidence of the city’s welcoming attitude toward
business.
“I’m happy at the speed this is progressing. I’m thrilled to
death that dirty building is already down,” she said.
Jed Hayes said he was pleased that everyone, from the city
to 7-Eleven, stuck with the project after initial plans to purchase the
building shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic reached Connecticut ended up
being delayed until this June. He said the initial work on the site will be to
raise it 12 feet “so it’s not the hole in the ground it once was.”
Gallo said she believes West Haven is the “national seat of
potential.”
“Potential is a genie in a bottle. Thanks to 7-Eleven, that
genie is out of the bottle,” she said.
Lamont, legislature headed for a showdown over funding of watchdog agency
Keith M. Phaneuf
Gov. Ned Lamont may be headed for a showdown with the
legislature over what appears to be a fraction of the state budget too small to
measure.
But what’s really at stake is the oversight of a major
wind-to-energy project in Long Island Sound and whether a long-underfunded
watchdog agency — founded not long after a Republican governor went to jail —
should have the resources to probe this venture.
“It doesn’t matter whether we have a Democrat or a
Republican in office,” said Rep. Toni E. Walker, D-New Haven. “It’s important
that we have transparency.”
When it comes to the State Contracting Standards Board,
“it’s very much time to fund it properly so it can do its statutory due
diligence — or to disband the organization,” said Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague,
the other co-chair of the appropriations panel. “And I favor funding it.”
Osten, Walker and others hope to reverse what they say was a
mistake Lamont and the legislature made — quickly and quietly — when the new
state budget was adopted in June.
That mistake, they say, was to empower the contracting board
to investigate the Connecticut Port Authority — but then to take away the
extremely modest resources needed to do the job at the last minute.
The contracting board was supposed to get $450,000 extra,
both this fiscal year and next, to add five staffers. With its current staff of
one, the board is severely constrained.
That reversal hasn’t set well with some legislators this
summer who’ve been hoping for more details about a controversial $700,000 fee
the port authority paid to find an operator for a wind-farm-related project at
State Pier in New London.
“It was our intention to have a robust process that the port
authority was subject to,” said Rep. Roland Lemar, D-New Haven, co-chairman of
the Transportation Committee. “An eviscerated Contracting Standards Board
cannot complete the task that we had envisioned.”
Port authority has a checkered past
That task was to review the contracts and procurement
policies of a group whose brief history has been mired in controversy.
Created by the legislature in 2014 to facilitate development
of Connecticut’s deep-water ports, the authority made headlines in 2019 when it
paid then-Chairwoman Bonnie Reemsnyder’s daughter $3,000 for six professional photographs hung in its
Old Saybrook office. Reemsnyder resigned in July of that year.
The state auditors of public accounts blasted the authority three months later, disclosing its
leaders had spent thousands of dollars on expensive meals and liquor, incurred
excessive legal fees and generally acted without clear policies governing
purchases, personnel matters and ethics.
Lamont, who inherited the authority when he took office in
January 2019, overhauled the quasi-public entity’s leadership and assigned his budget office to professionalize operations there.
The stakes are high, because the state is working with
Eversource and its Denmark-based partner, Ørsted North America, to transform New London into the green energy capital of the
Northeast with an offshore wind farm ultimately capable of generating
4,000 megawatt hours of electricity.
The Contracting Standards Board Chairman Lawrence Fox, a
West Hartford Democrat, told the CT Mirror that the board also took an interest
in early 2019. That was shortly after the authority had selected Gateway
Terminal to operate State Pier and remake it into a heavy-lift capable port
that can accommodate wind generation equipment.
The contracting board specifically focused on more than
$700,000 in fees paid to Seabury Capital Group to help with search for a pier
operator . The
Day of New London first reported that those payments included a
$523,000 “success” or reward fee — and that this happened three months after
Henry Juan III of Greenwich, who was a managing director with Seabury, resigned
from the authority board.
Juan could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
John Henshaw, who became the port authority’s executive
director in September after serving as a member of the Portland Harbor
Commissioner in Maine, said the authority has been cooperating with the
contracting board as well as other state agencies.
Lamont’s communications director, Max Reiss, said Tuesday
that “the governor’s position has not changed” and that “there are existing
accountability measures in place” already without an expansion of the
contracting board.
Attorney General William Tong and the state auditors
also have been investigating the port authority’s contract with Seabury
Capital.
Contracting board has never been properly funded
But Fox said the contracting board’s ability to make headway
is severely constrained by a longstanding problem: few resources.
The board — the linchpin of the landmark “Clean Contracting” system created in 2007 by the
Democrat-controlled legislature and Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell — was
Connecticut’s response to the contracting scandals that drove Gov. John G.
Rowland from office amid an impeachment inquiry in July 2004. Rowland later
served 10 months in federal prison after admitting he accepted about $100,000
in gifts from state contractors and his staff.
The panel would be empowered to review contracts and
procurement practices for most government agencies.
Not long after the board’s creation, though, Connecticut
would fall into the Great Recession, and legislators and Rell would siphon away
nearly all resources, leaving the volunteer standards board with no staff.
An executive director would eventually be hired, but once
the recession had ended, Democrats would take control of the governor’s office
— first Dannel P. Malloy, who served from 2011 through 2018, and then Lamont.
And neither has shown much need for the contracting board,
which has remained fiscally shackled for nearly a decade and a half.
Malloy tried in his first six months to suspend
contracting board operations for two years so he could more easily privatize
state services and cut operating costs.
Lamont, who also has made no secret of his plans to
privatize more state services as veteran government employees retire over the
next few years, offered a bill in 2019 to make it easier to launch
public-private ventures.
The legislature killed Lamont’s proposal, though,
after AFL-CIO President Salvatore Luciano called it “reckless and
shortsighted” and “an alarming attempt to return us to the
shadowy Rowland years.”
Budget battle isn’t really about the dollars
Leaders of the Appropriations Committee thought the
contracting board was the answer this year as legislative interest in the Port
Authority’s dealings grew.
After questions were raised about the contracting board’s
jurisdiction regarding quasi-public entities like the Port Authority, the
legislature passed a measure clarifying that the board could review such
matters.
The biennial budget legislators negotiated with Lamont
included just under $700,000 per year for the contracting board —the same level
the board was supposed to have when it was launched 14 years ago. This year’s
funding included $450,000 to fund additional positions.
But shortly after that was passed, legislative leaders — at
the request of the Lamont administration — included a provision in a subsequent budget policy bill that barred the board
from spending $450,000 of its annual allotment.
Fox said those funds were to create five new positions to
support Executive Director David Guay — whose only assistance currently comes
from a college intern.
Without those funds, Fox added, the board will do what it
can, but any comprehensive review of the port authority is not realistic.
Both Osten and Walker said they will propose restoring those
funds when the regular 2022 General Assembly session convenes next February —
or possibly sooner. Legislative leaders have not dismissed the possibility of a
special session this fall if the governor’s emergency powers tied to the
coronavirus pandemic need to be extended past September.
Osten and Walker both said the administration’s discomfort
with the contracting standards board is the issue, and not the proposed
spending.
In the context of this fiscal year’s $20.8 billion General Fund, $450,000 is
equal to about 1/462th of 1%. General Fund spending is still $22 million
under the spending cap.
The legislature’s top-ranking leaders, House Speaker Matt
Ritter, D-Hartford, and Senate President Pro Tem Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven,
agreed money is not the issue.
“I do not think [Lamont administration officials] have any
desire to see Connecticut go backwards, but they do see it as an infringement
on some of the executive powers they have,” Ritter said, adding he remains
hopeful some compromise on expanding contracting board resources can be
reached.
Looney said he also is optimistic, adding it’s important to
remember the board was broadly viewed as a much-needed reform when it was
enacted following the Rowland scandals.
“We should not cavalierly undermine its potential powers and
usefulness,” he said. “I think it’s another aspect of transparency in
government that I think inspires greater public confidence.”
There also is bipartisan support for restoring the funds.
Senate Republicans have pressed hard for an investigation
into the port authority’s actions. And Senate Minority Leader Kevin Kelly,
R-Stratford, said it’s a contradiction to empower the contracting board to
review the matter — and then to deny them the necessary resources.
“This is an issue that’s really about transparency and good
government,” he said. “You see the necessity, but then you’re cutting the
money?”
Pending DEEP decisions could change New London’s waterfront forever
Leadership in the bureaucracy of the state Department of
Energy and Environmental Protection is on the brink of important decisions
in two separate environmental applications, projects that together could change
the look and use of New London's deepwater port for generations.
The first is a request that DEEP put a temporary stay on its
plans to issue a permit to allow a remaking of State Pier for wind turbine
assembly, so that an appeal of the permit decision could be heard before 7
acres of the waters of the port are filled in and lost forever.
The appeal could be brought in Superior Court for an
independent assessment — a crucial review, I would suggest, since the
state essentially has been acting as both applicant and judge in the matter,
with state bureaucrats who report to Gov. Ned Lamont making a decision
about a project promoted and paid for by the governor, largely using taxpayer
money.
The state should welcome that independent assessment, but of
course no one in Hartford wants to deny or delay the $150 million subsidy, in
the form of a pier remake, Lamont is determined to gift to the rich wind
merchants.
The request for time for an appeal comes from the operator
of the road salt business that was evicted from the pier so that it could be
rebuilt to accommodate the assembly of offshore wind turbines. It's just
assembly. The turbines won't be manufactured anywhere near Connecticut.
The second New London port decision pending before DEEP is a
request by the National Coast Guard Museum Association to erect an enormous
glassy building on a tiny waterfront property with no street frontage, on a
flood plain on the wrong side of the railroad tracks, in the heart of the
city's transportation district.
Curiously, the opposition to the applications for both the
State Pier and museum projects is based on the same coastal resources law that
says development on the waterfront should be restricted to things that are
dependent on using the coastal waters.
In the case of State Pier, the pending DEEP decision
suggests in part the agency doesn't have to favor one water-dependent use
over another, even a preexisting one, or that ships taking freshly assembled
wind turbines offshore are just as dependent on water access as a business
importing road salt on ships. You can eliminate one water-dependent use, goes
the reasoning, if you replace it with another.
I'd like to see an independent review of that conclusion.
I would suggest that closing the port to traditional
shipping and shutting down the supply of salt used to keep the region's roads
safe in the winter is just the kind of loss of water-dependent use that
lawmakers were trying to prevent in determining future development on waterfront
property.
There is no pressing need, other than profit, for the rich
utilities to use New London's port to assemble wind turbines that will be
placed far offshore. Indeed, there are backup plans and assembly opportunities
in other states.
The non-water-dependent-use argument against the museum
application is an especially strong one.
It was made, curiously, very well by New London's Cross
Sound Ferry company, which wrote a blistering letter at the time the downtown
museum was proposed, saying it would use too much of the limited waterfront
needed for future ferry and transportation needs.
The ferry company later recanted its opposition, after
former Gov. Dannel Malloy threw into the project mix a $20 million pedestrian
bridge linking the ferry's terminal building and the museum to the city
garage.
Still, the company's objections against using precious
flood-vulnerable property in the space-challenged transportation district
remains a powerful argument against DEEP issuing that permit.
My request for emails from Lamont's office to
DEEP regarding the two projects have gone unanswered, and the matter seems
headed for an eventual review by the Freedom of Information Commission.
I suspect, if I ever get to see the emails, that the
governor's hand in interfering with DEEP decision-making has probably been much
heavier in making sure the utilities get what they want than in helping the
Coast Guard build its museum.
Time may tell.
This is the opinion of David Collins.
Windsor Locks seeks site for downtown revitalization
Joe Chaisson, Journal Inquirer
Windsor Locks is in negotiations to purchase a portion of
the Windsor Locks Commons as the town continues its efforts toward revitalizing
the downtown Main Street section.
The area, located at 255 Main St., is home to two businesses
— JJ’s News & Variety and Windsor Locks Diner — and is owned by John
Lombard of Locks LLC.
During a recent Board of Selectmen meeting, First Selectman
J. Christopher Kervick said the town would use funds from the American Rescue
Plan Act for the purchase.
The town received roughly $3.6 million, but the Board of
Finance has already allocated approximately $1.2 million to cover losses
related to local rental car companies from their struggles during the pandemic,
which leaves $2.4 million for the town to use, the Journal Inquirer reported
last month.
The purchase of the parcel was endorsed by the Downtown
Development Authority, Kervick said. The committee is responsible for putting
together redevelopment plans and overseeing land owned by the town involving
downtown redevelopment.
The area was the last parcel developed under the town’s
first redevelopment effort in the late 1960s and into the early 1970s, but has
since been poorly maintained, Kervick said.
“The town needs some of that property for our Main Street
redesign, and we have a big grant to redesign Main Street and we need a little
bit of that property to widen sidewalks and put a roundabout in, so we would
carve out what we need and then sell the remainder to a developer,” Kervick
said.
He added, “The problem is there is no developer out there
that is ready to buy that parcel just yet.
“The best way to market property to a developer or to secure
state or federal assistance with our transit-oriented development is to have
site control and there’s only two ways to have site control: you either own it
or have the option to buy it.”
The grant Kervick referenced is the $1.8 million Responsible
Growth and Transit-Oriented Development Program grant, which was awarded to the
town in December 2017.
Selectman Paul M. Harrington said he is not entirely opposed
to the purchase, but noted there are risks involved.
“The terms ‘risk’ and ‘town government’ should never be put
together. There is just too much at stake to take risks. This has nothing to do
with who proposed the idea, or what we have in mind, there’s just too many
risks,” Harrington said. “We represent over 12,000 people and we can’t afford
to jeopardize the well-being of our citizens. It just sounds to me like we are
prioritizing our wish list rather than our need list.”
Harrington said the risks include a lack of a developer, and
the idea that the town might need funds from the American Rescue Plan Act for
pandemic-related community needs in the near future, rather than economic
development needs.
Selectman Scott A. Storms could not be reached for comment.
Replacement project moves forward as new bridge takes shape in Greenwich's Bruce Park
Tyler Sizemore
GREENWICH — Construction of the new Davis Avenue bridge in Bruce Park has completed a major milestone, with the new structure on target to reopen on Sept. 1, according to the town Department of Public Works.
The project is scheduled to be finished by next spring.
The preset deck unit of the bridge was lifted into place and settled on Aug. 2, the DPW said in a statement Monday.
The original bridge was built in 1934 and had deteriorated, making it critical to replace the old span, the state determined. The DPW devised the project after inspectors labeled the bridge “functionally obsolete” and the Connecticut Department of Transportation lowered the load rating from 34 tons to 25 tons.
The Davis Avenue bridge carries 4,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day, the DPW said. The bridge serves three purposes — supporting traffic traveling on Davis Avenue, retaining water in the Davis Mill Pond and allowing water to flow into Indian Harbor.
According to the DPW, the bridge improvement project will:
Correct existing structural and functional deficiencies of the old bridge.
Improve traffic flow and safety at the bridge crossing.
Widen the driving lanes and shoulders of the bridge.
Add 5-foot shoulders that will make the bridge easier for bicyclists to use.
Brand-new pedestrian bridge.
Build new curbs and sidewalks near the bridge.
Improve run-off by putting in additional drainage.
Eliminate the bridge’s middle pier to reduce clogged debris and flooding.
Build a fish ladder to give migrating fish a detour route to swim upstream.
Put in new pavement and repaved markings on Davis Avenue near the bridge.
Hide utilities from public view.
Throughout the project, construction crews have been working six days a week, according to the town. The bridge reopening and project completion is dependent on weather and any unforeseen complications, DPW said.
Construction plans were prepared by Alfred Benesch & Company of Glastonbury. The contractor is A. Vitti Excavators of Stamford. Town of Greenwich DPW Senior Civil Engineer Jason Kaufman is the project manager.